CLR Review - ieg.worldbank.org · quality was not, and aspects of fiscal management capacity were...

CLR Reviewed by: Peer Reviewed by: CLR Review Manager/Coordinator Juan José Fernández-Ansola IEGEC Consultant

Zeljko Bogetic Lead Economist IEGEC

Jeff Chelsky Manager, IEGEC

Melissa Metz CLRR Coordinator, IEGEC

CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group

2. Ratings

CLR Rating IEG Rating

Development Outcome: Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory

WBG Performance: Good Good

3. Executive Summary

i. This review of Mexico’s Completion and Learning Review (CLR) of the World Bank Group’sCountry Partnership Strategy (CPS) covers the CPS period FY14-FY19 and the Performance andLearning Review (PLR) of January 26, 2017.

ii. Mexico is an upper-middle-income country with a gross national income (GNI) per capita (incurrent US$) of US$9,180 in 2018. During 2014-18, the average annual GDP growth rate was 2.2percent in a show of resilience in the face of a complex external environment. In the first half of2019, economic growth came to a virtual halt owing to policy uncertainty, tight monetary conditionsand budget under-execution as well as slowing global manufacturing activity.1 Over the longerterm, Mexico’s economic growth has been below the level needed to converge toward advancedcountry economies. The country’s per capita GDP, which is closely related to productivity, stands at34 percent of U.S. per capita GDP compared with 49 percent in 1980.2 Poverty rates (share ofindividuals living on less than the 2011 PPP US$1.90 per day poverty line) fell from 3.8 percent ofthe population in 2016 to 2.2 percent in 2016. There was a small decline in the Gini index from 48.7percent in 2014 to 48.3 in 2016. IEG’s Country Program Evaluation for Mexico (2018) indicates thatMexico’s multidimensional poverty index for the extremely poor fell from 11.3 percent in 2010 to7.6 percent in 2016, helping reduce the overall index from 46.1 percent to 43.6 percent. At thesame time, income growth of the bottom 40 percent was below the population mean.

iii. The CPS was congruent with the Government’s 2013-18 National Development Plan (NDP).3

It had four focus areas: (i) unleashing productivity, (ii) increasing social prosperity,(iii) strengthening public finances and government efficiency, and (iv) promoting green and inclusivegrowth. These focus areas address key development challenges, including improving productivityand reducing poverty. At PLR stage, several adjustments were introduced to improve theformulation of CPS objectives to better align them with what the CPS intended to achieve; in onlyone case was the design of the country program substantially changed. IBRD’s exposure to Mexico

1 IMF 2019 Article IV Consultation, IMF Country Report No. 19/336, Washington DC: November 2019, p. 5. 2 World Bank, 2018. Mexico – Systematic Country Diagnostic (English). Washington D.C.: World Bank Group. 3 The NDP had five pillars: (a) achieve peace; (b) make Mexico more inclusive; (c) improve the quality of education; (d) promote prosperity; and (e) consolidate Mexico as a responsible international player.

1. CPS Data

Country: Mexico

CPS Year: FY14 CPS Period: FY14 – FY19 CLR Period: FY14 – FY19 Date of this review: February 13, 2020

2 CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group

was at about 80 percent of the single borrower limit of US$19 billion during the program period. The authorities left a 20 percent headroom deliberately for potential borrowing in the event of a crisis.

iv. At the start of the CPS period, outstanding IBRD commitments amounted to US$6.2 billion,consisting of 16 investment project financing (IPF) operations and a development policy loan (DPL)implemented during FY12-FY14. About 70 percent of commitments (US$4.3 billion) were in theareas of social protection, education, and health and nutrition. During the CPS period, new IBRDcommitments totaled US$3.4 billion comprising 21 IPF operations, including one additionalfinancing project. A significant portion of these new commitments (about 40 percent) supportedfinancial inclusion and rural finance. During the CPS period, nine trust fund (TF)-financed projectswere approved amounting to US$105 million, supporting primarily environment-related objectives,housing, and education. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) made US$1.4 billion in 71long-term investments and had an average short-term trade finance guarantee exposure of US$2.5million under the Global Trade Finance Program. IFC’s total investments active during FY14-FY19amounted to US$2.4 billion.4 The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) approved aguarantee for a gross exposure of US$963 million in the energy sector.

v. IEG rates the CPS development outcome as Moderately Satisfactory. Of the sevenobjectives, one was Achieved and six Mostly Achieved. The objective to improve financial inclusionwas achieved. The objectives on improving access to and quality of education, enhancing theinvestment climate in target states, increasing access and integration of the social protectionsystem, improving fiscal management capacity, improving capacity for low-carbon urbandevelopment management, and enhancing the sustainable management of key natural resourceswere mostly achieved.

vi. Overall, IEG rates World Bank Group performance as Good. The CPS design addressedimportant development challenges, and on the whole, the program had a focus on reducing povertyand improving shared prosperity. Three out of seven CPS objectives at PLR stage had a directfocus on improving living standards for the poor, including financial inclusion in underserved ruralareas, and/or targeted low-income areas. Despite a rigorous selectivity exercise, the broad scopeof some objectives made the original program less selective in terms of coverage than it appeared.In the original design, there was a weak link between some objectives and their results indicators.The PLR adjusted several objectives to improve the quality of the results framework and respond tochanges in client demand. Still, after the PLR, some objectives (natural resources and renewableenergy) were compound objectives that were broader in scope than the WBG interventions couldachieve, and the PLR reduced the program’s aspirations related to increased non-oil publicrevenues and improved expenditure equity (original Objective 6).

vii. In terms of implementation, project performance at exit was better than the LAC region andthe World Bank overall.5 Just three out of 17 projects that exited during the CPS were ratedModerately Unsatisfactory or lower. The World Bank was generally proactive through countryportfolio performance reviews, which provided solutions to issues in the implementation of severalprojects. However, for some of the ongoing operations (e.g. Urban Transport Transformationproject [FY10]) implementation issues were difficult to resolve despite the World Bank’s proactivity.The programmatic approach to Advisory Services and Analytics (ASA) provided a strategicapproach to activities (individual activities had to be coherent with the whole program) and its multi-annual framework permitted annual reviews to adjust the program as needed. IFC participated inthree out of the four program pillars, and it contributed to progress in financial inclusion, opening

4 This includes $963 million in commitments made prior to FY14 that were active during the CPS period. 5 Performance at exit, measured by outcomes rated Moderately Satisfactory or better by IEG: Mexico (75 percent of projects and 97 percent weighted by volume of commitments), Latin America region (73 percent of projects and 80 percent weighted by volume of commitments) and World Bank (76 percent of projects and 84 percent weighted by volume of commitments).


local markets to the private sector, education, housing, and renewable energy. MIGA also participated with a political risk guarantee in the energy sector.

viii. The CLR provided four lessons: (i) flexibility in the WBG’s engagement was key toresponding rapidly to the country’s development needs, (ii) supporting Mexico’s role as a globalknowledge leader provides important insights for the global public goods agenda, (iii) closecollaboration within the WBG has been critical to creating an appropriate business environment andsucceeding in crowding in private sector solutions, and (iv) the use of the full suite of WBG servicesand instruments of engagement with the public and private sectors is a good example of the WBG’srelevance in upper-middle-income countries, such as Mexico.

ix. IEG broadly agrees with these lessons, with nuances. On flexibility, indeed there was somerefocusing of resources at PLR stage as explained in footnote 9, but this was minor compared withthe radical changes under the previous (FY08-FY13) strategy in response to the effects of theglobal financial crisis. On collaboration within the WBG, the role of IFC was significant, and MIGAplayed its part, but the CLR only briefly mentions how IBRD, IFC, and MIGA coordinated under theprogram.

x. Under the Mexico CPS for FY14-FY19, World Bank Group supported the government ofMexico to implement interventions that were targeted to addressing the country’s developmentgoals and were broadly focused on reducing poverty and improving shared prosperity. There was adegree of selectivity, and there was strong ownership of the CPS by the authorities. World Bank,IFC, and MIGA interventions complemented each other, but the degree to which the institutionsworked together was not explained explicitly in the CLR. There were shortcomings in measuring theprogram’s intended results and outcomes. There was a weak link between some of the CPSobjectives and their indicators, especially in the original design, and there could have been agreater outcome orientation in some cases. For instance, access to education was measured, butquality was not, and aspects of fiscal management capacity were measured, but the quality of fiscalmanagement itself was not. Nevertheless, the program made important contributions to Mexico’sdevelopment – telecommunications backbone infrastructure (Red Compartida) and access tofinance for individuals and firms stand out in particular.

4. Strategic Focus

Relevance of the WBG Strategy:

1. Congruence with Country Context and Country Program. A new government assumedoffice in December 2012—about a year before the start of the CPS period—and launched a reformprogram to boost growth and reduce poverty. The initial set of reforms proposed by the governmentcovered telecommunications, education, financial services, public finance and energy. The countrywas facing challenges that included accelerating productivity growth, raising living standards byreducing poverty and inequality, improving states’ public finances, and promoting green growth.Between 1991 and 2016, the contribution of total factor productivity (TFP) to growth was negative (-1percent), signaling structural challenges.6 States were reliant on federal transfers, which accounted for90 percent of subnational public revenues, and sometimes resorted to unregistered debt. Publicfinances remained vulnerable to natural disasters.7 According to the Union of Concerned Scientists,Mexico was the largest contributor of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Latin America in 2016, andranked 12th in the world (445.5 metric megatons). In addition to diverging from U.S. per capita GDP,Mexico suffers from significant regional differences. One out of three Mexicans in poverty lives inChiapas, Guerrero, or Oaxaca, and 14 states out of 32 have populations with extreme monetarypoverty rates above 30 percent.8 These challenges were complicated by uncertainties associated with

6 Systematic Country Diagnostic (2018), p. 24. 7 Mexico Country Partnership Strategy (October 2013), p. 9. 8 Mexico Country Partnership Strategy (2013), pp. 3-4.


trade frictions with the United States and adjustments in policy priorities from the administration that took office in December 2018.

2. The CPS pillars—unleashing productivity, increasing social prosperity, strengthening publicfinances and government efficiency, and promoting green and inclusive growth—were congruent withMexico’s National Development Plan 2013-18 by addressing explicitly NDP pillars to make Mexicomore inclusive, improve the quality of education, and promote prosperity (see footnote 3).

3. Relevance of Design. The World Bank used primarily IPF operations and ASA to support theCPS objectives. The new IPF operations supported especially the areas of education, socialprotection, health, and water supply. The complementary ASA program was organized initially aroundseven Programmatic Approaches and subsequently expanded, where the Bank provided inputs onclimate change, financial sector, poverty reduction, urban development, public sector strengthening,and health. Reimbursable Advisory Services (RAS) were used at both the federal and sub-nationallevels. The WBG worked with both public and private sector clients at the federal level and with someof the poorest states, such as Oaxaca. IFC contributed significantly to the program—through bothinvestments and Advisory Services in support of unleashing productivity, increasing social prosperity,and promoting green and inclusive growth—and its contributions were well captured in the resultsframework. On the whole, the emphasis on ASA was appropriate for an upper middle-income country.The proposed WBG interventions could reasonably be expected to contribute towards theachievement of the CPS objectives and the country’s development goals. However, in some cases theobjectives and associated indicators in the original CPS were formulated more broadly than the WBGprogram aimed, or could be expected, to achieve. While the four pillars of the original CPS were keptat PLR stage, the number of objectives was reduced from 12 in the original CPS to seven, with25 indicators (from 29 in the original CPS). The Bank acknowledged that it was not on a position tosupport the broad scope of some objectives. Objective 4 on skilled labor participation wasappropriately changed to relate it more directly to the support the WBG planned to provide asdocumented in the original results framework, which was mainly related to education. The originalobjective 6 on non-oil public revenue and improved expenditure equity was merged with objectives7 and 8, and changed. The intention of original Objective 6 (increasing non-oil public revenues andimproving expenditure equity) was pared down, and the intention of original Objectives 7 and 8 weremaintained or slightly reduced. Apart from the reduction in expectations on original Objective 6, theother changes appear to be consistent with the original CPS and the program’s overall aims. Thechanges improve the quality of the results framework and reflect some changes in client demand.

Selectivity

4. The World Bank team went through a rigorous selectivity exercise based on WBG comparativeadvantage, client demand, and alignment to WBG goals. As a result, it exited Bank activities in tradecompetitiveness, customs, judicial, and influenza support programs primarily due to weak clientdemand and unsuccessful engagements during the previous CPS period. It also shifted theknowledge program to multi-year/multi-sector Programmatic Approaches, each with one commondevelopment objective aligned with CPS objectives (innovation strategies for poor states, integrationof social protection systems, managing fiscal challenges, and disaster risk management andurbanization). The CPS contained an indicative lending envelope for FY14-FY15, and over the courseof CPS implementation nine additional projects were approved. Around half of these started beforethe PLR was conducted and were incorporated in the results framework at PLR stage. The newprojects contributed to the country program objectives (1, 2, 4, 5, and 6), and the PLR also appears tohave been used appropriately to make some adjustments in the country program based on clientdemand.9 However, the broad scope of some objectives made the original program less selective interms of coverage than it appeared as in the case of objectives 4, 6, 7, and 8, on skilled labor

9 The original CPS envisaged support for infrastructure development under pillar 1 in view of possible requests from the new National Infrastructure Plan, which did not materialize. Therefore, at PLR stage, support for infrastructure was replaced by a deepening engagement on financial inclusion, support for developing special economic zones (SEZ) in the poor south and southeastern states, strengthening productivity in agriculture, and linking the social protection system to productive programs.


participation, non-oil public revenue and expenditure equity, public sector management, and the risk management framework.

Alignment

5. On the whole, the program had a focus on reducing poverty and improving shared prosperity.Three out of seven CPS objectives at PLR stage focused directly on these goals, including financialinclusion in underserved rural areas, and/or targeted low-income areas. The Bank supportedprograms, such as PROSPERA,10 that target the most vulnerable citizens for social assistance. Inaddition, targeted interventions in poor states under the unleashing productivity pillar benefited remoteareas and lagging regions, such as Oaxaca, where extreme poverty is concentrated. The SpecialEconomic Zones agenda—cancelled by the new administration due to a change of priorities—specifically targeted the lagging south and southeastern states. Disaster risk management addressedrisks that affect primarily the poor and vulnerable families.

5. Development Outcome

Overview of Achievement by Objective:

Focus Area I: Unleashing Productivity

6. Focus Area I had two objectives: (i) improve financial inclusion for productive purposes, and(ii) improve the investment climate in target states and select infrastructure development forproductive purposes.

7. Objective 1: Improve financial inclusion for productive purposes. This objective wassupported by the Savings and Credit Sector Consolidation and Financial Inclusion Project (FY12) andthe Expanding Rural Finance project (FY16). Several ASA products supported the objective:Catalyzing Financial Sector Development (FY19), Sound Financial Sector Development ProgrammaticApproach (FY16), RAS Banxico Programmatic (FY17), Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP)Update (FY17), Mexico Financial Capabilities Assessment (FY14), and Oaxaca Engagement MexicoProgrammatic Approach (FY16). The objective also was supported by several IFC investments infinancial institutions: Compartamos, Agrofinanzas, Banko del Bajio, Progresemos, CAMESA, Mifel,Konfio and Contigo. In addition, IFC provided two advisory services: Progresemos and PBGI Learning& RE. Objective 1 had four indicators:

• Number of clients [persons] mainstreamed into the formal financial sector: The April 2017 ISRof the Savings and Credit Sector Consolidation and Financial Inclusion Project (FY12) reportsthat 9.35 million of clients were mainstreamed into the formal sector as of December 2016(compared with a target of 8 million in 2016). That number increased to 9.5 million by June2017 according to IEG’s ICR review of the project. Twenty percent of the additional clients(from baseline of 7.12 million in 2014) received credit, savings, and /or insurance in addition toa guaranteed bank account. Achieved

• Number of additional MSMEs in the rural economy with access to credit (of which 60 percentare female-owned) (cumulative). The May 2019 ISR of the Expanding Rural Finance project(FY16) reports that there were 118,107 microfinance beneficiaries financed by the project as ofDecember 2018, of which 86 percent were female (compared with target of 22,222 in 2018, ofwhich 13,333 female). The indicator measures the total number of MSMEs that received creditthrough the Bank’s project. IEG notes that the term “additional” may be imprecise as this doesnot measure first-time borrowers or MSMEs that would not have been able to access creditthrough other means. However, as the Country Team has defined it the target is Achieved.

10 PROSPERA is a social protection program based on conditional cash transfers that serves about 7 million poor and vulnerable families, or about a fourth of the total population. It is one of the grant programs with the largest allocations in the Federal Public Administration (0.5 percent of GDP).


• IFC: Number and volume (US$) of MSME loans in outstanding portfolio. During the CPSperiod IFC-supported investments generated 3.7 million loans with a volume of US$4.1 billion(compared with a target of 4.07 million loans, and US$4.3 billion). Mostly Achieved

• IFC: Number of new issuers in the capital markets with IFC’s support. There were three bondissuances supported by IFC (compared with a target of four), all with the Consorcio deAsistencia al Microeemprendedor (CAMESA), a microfinance institution. IFC supported onetwo-year bond issue and one three-year bond issue in 2015, and one three-year bond issue in2017. Mostly Achieved

8. There was progress in the number of clients mainstreamed into the formal financial sector,and increased financing for rural MSMEs. IFC contributed to MSME financing and helped a micro-finance institution and a lead developer of housing for low- and middle-income families to tap thedomestic financial market. Additional evidence provided by the country team beyond the CLR clarifiesthat the Bank’s lending and IFC’s investments in microfinance and financial inclusion werecomplementary. IFC supported commercial players in expanding the range of financial instrumentsand access to them, while the Bank’s work focused on the policy environment, capacity-building, andlending in poorer and remote areas. Regarding the second part of the objective (productive purposes),three out of four results indicators imply that the results achieved were for productive purposesthrough their focus on MSMEs. However, the first indicator, on clients mainstreamed into the formalfinancial system, did not track how many clients used the financial services for productive purposesversus household consumption. In addition, for the second indicator under this objective, IEG notesthat the indicator used (MSMEs receiving credit) measures a narrower segment of the market than theindicator name (MSMEs with access to credit). An MSME with access to credit may or may notchoose to take on credit. On balance, Objective 1 was Achieved.

9. Objective 2: Improve the investment climate in target states and select infrastructuredevelopment for productive purposes. This objective was supported by ASA on MexicoProductivity Democratization Programmatic Approach (FY19), Supporting Mexico’s SEZ (FY19),Oaxaca Regulatory Barriers to Competition (FY14), and Oaxaca Judiciary RAAP (FY16). IFCsupported the objective with several investments: APM TEC II (ports), Tuxpan (ports), Agrofinanzas(finance), Norson (agriculture/ forestry), Acuagranjas (agriculture/forestry), Bioparques(agriculture/forestry), Red Compartida (broadband), Citla Energy (oil), Solem Dos (electricity), andPotrero Solar (electricity). Objective 2 had four indicators:

• Number of recommended regulations/amendments/codes adopted in SEZ states. The Bankprovided advisory support to the preparation of the Federal Law on Special Economic Zones,which was adopted on June 1, 2016, and its implemented regulations, which were adopted onJune 30, 2016. The authorities accepted at least 18 specific provisions recommended by theWBG (compared with a target of 9). Following the change in the national government inDecember 2018, the SEZ program was cancelled reflecting a change in Mexico’s priorities.However, elements of the SEZ one-stop-shop (Ventanilla Unica) and the supplier developmentprogram supported by the World Bank are currently being piloted at the subnational level invarious of the states that had been included in the SEZ program. Achieved

• IFC: Containers handled (Millions TEU Containers)/Port Operations. The IFC DOTS databaseshow that IFC investments resulted in 0.36 Million TEU containers handled as of 2017 and0.76 million TEU handled in 2018 (compared with a target of 1.67 million in 2018). IFC clientManzanillo served 0.9 million TEUs in 2017; however, IFC’s investment was canceled after theexpansion it was to fund was delayed, and therefore these results are not included. PartiallyAchieved

• IFC: Number of farmers integrated into the agribusiness value chain through projects financedby IFC. During the CPS period, IFC investments in three agribusiness clients and one financialservices client focused on the agribusiness sector reached 12,013 farmers (compared with atarget of 8,630 for 2018). IFC clarified that its standard indicator of farmers integrated into theagribusiness value chain encompasses results of companies that have been leading their


respective agribusiness subsectors via supply chain creation by SME onboarding, and/or standard setting, contributing to improvements in the agribusiness investment climate that do not necessarily come from improved federal or local regulation. Achieved

• IFC: New private sector investments facilitated by IFC in opportunities generated by Mexicanreforms. The IFC Mexico Strategy FY20-25 document reports that there were US$1.3 billion(IFC’s own account) or US$2.3 billion (IFC’s own account plus mobilization) of new privatesector investments as of FY19 (against target of US$700 million, and US$1.5 billion,respectively). Three IFC investments in the electricity and oil & gas sectors (Potrero Solar,Solem, and Citla) were made possible by a reform that opened these sectors to privateinvestment. IFC’s support to Altan Redes enabled it to enter into a concession with TELECOMto develop and operate the wholesale network and provide telecommunication services toretailers. This was made possible by a constitutional reform to improve the competitiveness ofthe telecommunication markets. These four investments totaled US$148.9 million in netcommitments from IFC’s own account, plus US$410 million in mobilization, for a total ofUS$558.9 million (IFC’s own account plus mobilization). Three of these projects have a totalvalue of US$1,158.9 million, and the fourth is projected to reach US$7 billion. Beyond thesefour projects, it is unclear how much of the mobilization due to IFC’s investment during theCPS period was in investments from opportunities generated by the Mexican reforms. PartiallyAchieved.

10. On balance IEG rates Objective 2 as Mostly Achieved.

11. IEG rates Focus Area I as Satisfactory. There was progress in improving financial inclusionfor productive purposes. The authorities accepted 18 WBG-recommended specific provisions for theSEZ law, and although the SEZ program was cancelled in 2019 under the new government, someelements of the WBG’s advice are being implemented at the sub-national level. The number offarmers integrated into agribusiness value chains increased significantly, and IFC invested andmobilized substantial resources into Mexico, particularly in the finance, agriculture, and energysectors. However, IFC investments fell short of the container capacity targeted under the WBGprogram. While IFC’s investments reached impressive levels, only four projects were identified thathad an explicit link to opportunities generated by reforms undertaken by the Mexican government, andIFC’s investment from its own account plus mobilization fell well short of the target. However, it isnotable that the total value of these projects is projected to reach over US$8 billion. IEG did not reviewXPSRs of IFC investments in the agriculture or energy sectors. The XPSRs of the two investmentsthat IEG reviewed related to the financial sector were Mostly Successful.

Focus Area II: Increasing Social Prosperity

12. Focus Area II had two objectives, to improve: (i) access to and quality in target educationprograms, and (ii) access to and integration of the social protection system.

13. Objective 3: Improve access and quality in target education programs. This objective wassupported by the School Based Management project (FY15) and the Reducing Inequality ofEducational Opportunity project (FY15), and ASA on Knowledge Agenda of the Educational Reform inMexico. The objective also was supported by several IFC investments: FINEM and FINAE (educationfinancing), UAG University, and Harmon Hall (education services). However, the developmentoutcomes of the investments in UAG University and in Harmon Hall were considered Unsuccessfulaccording to IEG’s reviews of the projects’ XPSRs. In addition, IFC provided two advisory services:EduMex and Laureate Results Measurement. Objective 3 had three indicators:

• Gross failure rate (%) among basic (primary and secondary) education schools in programs tostrengthen School-Based Management (SBM). IEG’s ICR review reports that the gross failurerate for both the Programa de Reforma Educativa (PRE) and the Programa de Escuelas deTiempo Completo (PETC) were 1.44 percent for primary school and 7.84 percent forsecondary school. Neither the ICR nor the ICR review report gross failure rates separately forthe two programs, as targeted under the results framework. However, the actual failure rates in


2018 were above (worse than) the 2014 baselines of 1.1 percent (primary) and 7.79 percent (secondary). Not Achieved

• Transition rate (%) from primary to secondary education for graduates of CONAFEadministered schools in selected National Crusade against Hunger (CNCH) municipalities. TheICR of the Reducing Inequality of Educational Opportunity project (FY15) reports that the transition rate from primary to secondary education for graduates of CONAFE schools in selected National Crusade against Hunger (CNCH) municipalities was 70 percent as of December 2018 (compared with a target of 70 percent). Achieved

• Number of students enrolled in higher level institutions financed by IFC (baseline 52,000 ofwhich 26,000 female in 2012). IEG can confirm from the IFC REACH database that as of 2017,IFC supported investments resulted in 89,377 students reached (of which 46,420 were female);compared with a target of 105,000 (of which 52,000 female). Mostly Achieved

14. The indicators measure access. For quality, it would have been more appropriate to have theresults in exams that indicate level of attainment. The gross failure rate targets by program could notbe verified by IEG, but aggregate performance is worse than the baselines. The CLR cites resultsfrom an impact evaluation that suggests improved learning in seven states where it assessed theimpact of project supported activities such as school grants and capacity building upon learning. Onbalance, Objective 3 is Mostly Achieved.

15. Objective 4: Improve access and integration of the social protection system. Thisobjective was supported by the Social Protection System project (FY15). Several ASA productssupported the objective: Social Protection and Labor Engagement (FY20), Support for Strengtheningof the Social Protection System and its Focus on Wellbeing, Nutritional Status and Food Security(FY18), Social Protection System Programmatic Approach II (FY17), and Social Protection and Health(FY14). The objective also was supported by IFC’s UAG University investment (although IEG’s reviewconsidered this Unsuccessful). Objective 4 had four indicators:

• Number of PROSPERA beneficiaries that participate in social programs (baseline: 465,842 in2014). The June 2019 ISR of the Social Protection System project (FY15) reports that1,797,097 beneficiaries participated in social programs as of December 2018 (compared with atarget of 726,779). Achieved

• Number of PROSPERA beneficiaries that participate in productive programs11 (baseline:14,370 in 2014). The June 2019 ISR of the Social Protection System project (FY15) reportsthat 318,217 beneficiaries participated in productive programs as of December 2017(compared with a target of 22,402). Achieved

• Number of instruments implemented for an integrated social information system (baseline: 0 in2014). The June 2019 ISR of the Social Protection System project (FY15) reports that therewere 7 instruments implemented for an integrated social information system as of December2018 (compared with a target of 5). Achieved

• Number of low-income patients treated by private health care providers financed by IFC(baseline: 226,000 in 2012). IFC-supported investments resulted in 348,341 patients(inpatients and outpatients) reached/served. However, it is unclear what the share of low-income patients is, as the IFC projects supported low to middle-income patients. The targetwas 260,000. Not Verified

16. The indicators do not measure access of the social protection program (number of participantsvs those that are eligible) but rather the participation of beneficiaries of one program (PROSPERA) insocial and productive programs. Further, there is no evidence that the number of patients treated by

11 The objective of productive programs is for beneficiary families to increase their income through profitable productive activities.


private health care providers financed by IFC were specifically low-income patients. On balance, IEG rates Objective 4 as Mostly Achieved.

17. IEG rates Focus Area II as Moderately Satisfactory. Access in target education programsimproved, but the quality of such programs could not be assessed adequately. A substantial numberof instruments was introduced to integrate the social information system, and PROSPERAbeneficiaries participated in social and productive programs in significant numbers.

Focus Area III: Strengthening Public Finances and Government Efficiency 18. Focus Area III had one objective: to improve fiscal management capacity and increaseadoption of modern public financial or information management mechanisms in selected states.

19. Objective 5: Improve fiscal management capacity and increase adoption of modernpublic financial or information management mechanisms in selected states. This objective wassupported by ASA on Subnational Fiscal Topics (FY19), TA on Strengthening SubnationalGovernments (FY19), Strengthening Unplanned Debt Prevention for Subnational Governments(FY18), Fiscal Challenges PKS (FY15), Programmatic Approach for Public Sector (FY16), AgricultureRisk Management (FY15), Strengthening DRM (FY16), RAS Programmatic Engagement in DRM(FY15), Strengthening Public Sector Management Systems in Mexico City (FY18), RAS on ImprovingEvidence Based Policy (FY17), RAS for Strengthening Public Sector Management, and FosteringAccountability and Efficiency in Public Service Delivery (FY16). Objective 5 had three indicators:

• Number of states that are in compliance with reporting requirements under the new FiscalDiscipline Law for Subnational Entities. The Secretariat of Finance and Public Credit reports onits website that 31 states were in compliance with reporting requirements under the new FiscalDiscipline Law for Subnational Entities (compared with a target of at least five). Achieved

• Number of states that have joined the disaster risk transfer pool proposed by the FederalGovernment. The activity completion summary of Strengthening DRM in Mexico (FY16)reports that three states (Oaxaca, San Luis de Potosi, and Hidalgo) implemented the pilotmechanism creating a pool to transfer their disaster risk to the market (compared with a targetof six). Partially Achieved

• Number of states that have adopted at least one new recommended mechanism to improvetheir public financial or information system. Recommendations have been adopted in Oaxaca,Guanajuato, Jalisco, Morelos, Veracruz, and Puebla, compared with a target of at leastfive states. Achieved

20. The results show that fiscal management capacity and compliance with reporting and publicfinancial or information systems have mostly been improved. While the first result indicator measurescompliance with reporting requirements only, the CLR states that the impact goes beyond purelyreporting, as the law established a fiscal rule for states and municipalities that links fiscal balances toindebtedness levels, and this has resulted in tightening debt management practices and controls atthe subnational level. This has not been independently verified by IEG. Mexico issued a catastropherisk bond which, according to the CLR, was the largest government catastrophe bond in history, thefirst catastrophe bond in South America, and the second-largest catastrophe bond deal ever.However, the number of states joining the disaster risk transfer pool proposed by the FederalGovernment was lower than expected. IEG notes that the improvements in fiscal managementcapacity do not necessarily mean that fiscal management itself has been improved. On balance,Objective 5 was Mostly Achieved.

21. IEG rates Focus Area III as Moderately Satisfactory. A significant number of states are incompliance with reporting requirements under the new fiscal discipline, states are participating indisaster risk pooling and/or developing associated financing strategies, and several states haveimproved their public financial or information systems.


Focus Area IV: Promoting Green and Inclusive Growth 22. Focus Area IV had two objectives: (i) improve capacity for low-carbon urban developmentmanagement, and (ii) improve management of key natural resources.

23. Objective 6: Improve capacity for low-carbon urban development management. Thisobjective was supported by the Urban Transport Transformation Program (FY10), Efficient Lightingand Appliances project (FY11), Sustainable Transport and Air Quality project (FY16), and theMunicipal Energy Efficiency project (FY16) and its additional financing (FY18). Several ASA productscontributed to the objective: Programmatic Approach for the Agenda on Sustainable Transport (FY19),Social Risk Management and Benefit Sharing Analysis for Wind Power Sector in Oaxaca (FY18),Greening Electricity Generation (FY14), Urban and Housing Programmatic Approach (FY17), UrbanEnvironmental Services, and the TRACE Model in Pilot Cities in Latin America (FY15). In addition, IFCinvested in Group Vinte and City Express. Objective 6 had three indicators:

• GHG emissions avoided or reduced in cities supported by Bank projects in the energy andtransport sectors (tCO2e). At least 1.7 million tons of CO2 were reduced during the CPSperiod, against a target of 827,919 for 2018. Achieved

• Number of large and intermediate cities using the Municipal Energy Diagnostics Toolsdeveloped by the Bank (Tool for Rapid Assessment of City Energy-TRACE, Climate Action forUrban Sustainability-CURB). The ICR review of the Efficient Lighting and Appliances project(FY11) reports that more than 30 additional cities across the country used TRACE to diagnosepotential energy efficiency investments. IEG was able to validate that an additional two citiesimplemented TRACE. Thus, a total of 32 additional cities implemented TRACE, compared withtarget of 42 additional cities by 2018. Thirteen municipalities and two states participated in aCURB training supported by the WB in April 2018 (CURB Training Final Report, P149872);however, the project did not monitor municipalities’ implementation of CURB as a diagnostictool. Mostly Achieved

• Number of projects with Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies (EDGE) certification(target five by 2018). The CLR reports that IFC contributed to the final certification of fourprojects (two in the State of Mexico and two in the State of Veracruz). IEG can verify that threeprojects received certification during the CPS period. One certificate had been issued prior tothe CPS period. Mostly Achieved

24. With Bank support, Mexico reduced GHG emissions, and increased its capacity for low-carbonurban management. On balance, Objective 6 was Mostly Achieved.

25. Objective 7: Improve sustainable management of key natural resources (forests,biodiverse areas, water, and combined renewable energy). This objective was supported by theForests and Climate Change project (FY12), the Sustainable Production Systems and Biodiversity(FY13), the Coastal Watersheds Conservation in the Context of Climate Change (FY14), theEfficiency Improvement Program (FY11), the Sustainable Rural Development (FY09), GEF LargeScale RE Development—La Venta 3 (FY06), Hybrid Solar Thermal—Agua Prieta (FY07), theSustainable Energy Technologies Development for Climate Change (FY15), and Integrated EnergyServices (FY08). Several ASA products contributed to the objective: Forests and Climate Change:Building Low-Carbon and Resilient Landscapes (FY19), National Center for Hydrocarbon Information(FY15), Strengthening 18) Security and Resilience (FY19), Water Sector Adaptation TechnicalCooperation Program (FY14), RAS Development of an Improved Management Plan for the CutzamalaWater System, Phase II (FY16), Programmatic Approach for the Energy Sector: Supporting a Low-Carbon Economy (FY18), and Programmatic Approach for Environmental and Climate Change(FY16). In addition, IFC investments in Eurus, Puertas Finas, Solem (I and II), Potrero Solar, SolemSolar, Bioappel, Perote II, IEnova Corp, and advisory services provided to Puertas Finas for resourceefficiency12 also supported the objective. MIGA provided a US$963 million political risk guarantee to

12 IEG assessed the Development Outcome of the Puertas Finas AS as Successful.


Fisterra Energy Holdings’ (Spain) investment in Ciclo Combinado Tierra Mojada S.A. (Zapotlanejo, Jalisco). Objective 7 had five indicators:

• Forest area under sustainable management practices and conservation schemes (hectares).In 2016, Mexico increased the area under sustainable management practices to 4.45 millionhectares, but this result was not sustained. The ICR review for the Forests and ClimateChange project reports that as of February 2018 about 3.9 million hectares were undersustainable management practices, a negligible increase over a baseline of 3.86 millionhectares in 2014 (the target was 4.5 million hectares in 2017). Partially Achieved

• Area brought under enhanced biodiversity protection (hectares). In total, 1,323,564 hectareswere brought under enhanced biodiversity protection (compared with a target of 1,134,500hectares in 2018). Achieved

• Number of water utilities whose global efficiency increases by two percent. The ICR review forthe Efficiency Improvement Program (FY11) reports that eight water utilities increased theirglobal efficiency by two percent as of June 2016 (compared with a target of five in 2016).Achieved

• Power in GWh generated from renewable sources supported by WBG projects (eolic, solar,combined, biomass). WBG projects resulted in at least 3,407 GWh generated from renewableresources, compared with a target of 3,838 GWh in 2018 (the baseline was 1,005 GWh in2014). Mostly Achieved

• GHG emissions in tCO2e avoided or reduced from renewable sources supported by WBGprojects (eolic, solar, combined, biomass). Taking into account reduction or avoidance of GHGemissions by WBG projects, the total emission reduction was at least 6 million tCO2e(compared with a target of 4.5 million). Achieved

26. The objective should have been disaggregated into two – one for sustainable management ofnatural resources and the other for GHG emissions from renewable energy sources as these aredistinct efforts. On balance, Objective 7 is Mostly Achieved.

27. IEG rates Focus Area IV as Moderately Satisfactory. A number of cities are using energydiagnostic tools, and GHG emissions were reduced through renewable energy sources supported byWBG projects. A significant area was brought under enhanced biodiversity protection, and substantialGHG emissions were avoided or reduced in cities supported by Bank projects in the energy andtransport sectors (tCO2e). However, there was a negligible increase of forest area under sustainablemanagement practices.

Overall Assessment and Rating

28. IEG rates the CPS development outcome as Moderately Satisfactory. Of the sevenobjectives, one was Achieved and six Mostly Achieved. On Focus Area I there was good progress inimproving financial inclusion for productive purposes, and a significant number of farmers wereintegrated into agribusiness value chains. However, IFC investments fell short of the targetedcontainer capacity. On Focus Area II, education access in target programs improved although theirquality is hard to assess. The social information system became more integrated, and PROSPERAbeneficiaries showed active participation in social and productive programs. Under Focus Area III,fiscal reporting by states improved, there was progress in disaster risk pooling, and states enhancedtheir public financial or information systems. From the information available, it is unclear whetherstates improved their fiscal management. Under Focus Area IV, GHG emissions were reducedthrough renewable energy sources supported by WBG projects, but there was a meager increase offorest area under sustainable management practices.


Objectives CLR Rating IEG Rating Focus Area I: Unleashing Productivity Satisfactory Satisfactory Objective 1: Improve financial inclusion for productive purposes Achieved Achieved Objective 2: Improve the investment climate in target states and select infrastructure development for productive purposes. Mostly Achieved Mostly Achieved

Focus Area II: Increasing Social Prosperity Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Objective 3: Improve access and quality in target education programs Mostly Achieved Mostly Achieved

Objective 4: Improve access and integration of the social protection system Achieved Mostly Achieved

Focus Area III: Strengthening Public Finances and Government Efficiency Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory

Objective 5: Improve fiscal management capacity and increase adoption of modern public financial or information management mechanisms in selected states.

Achieved Mostly Achieved

Focus Area IV: Promoting Green and Inclusive Growth Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Objective 6: Improve capacity for low-carbon urban development management Mostly Achieved Mostly Achieved

Objective 7: Improve sustainable management of key natural resources (forests, biodiverse areas, water, and combined renewable energy).

Achieved Mostly Achieved

6. WBG Performance

Lending and Investments

29. At the start of the CPS period, outstanding IBRD commitments amounted to US$5.6 billionconsisting of 16 IPF operations approved during FY08-FY10. About 77 percent of the commitments(US$4.3 billion) were in focus area II (increasing social prosperity), for social protection, education,and health and nutrition. The rest were distributed in transport, energy and extractives, water,environment, finance and competitiveness, macroeconomics, trade and investment, and agriculture.During the CPS period, new IBRD commitments totaled US$3.4 billion comprising 13 IPF operationsincluding one additional financing project and 2 DPLs. Most of the commitments (47 percent)supported focus area II (increasing social prosperity) for education and social protection and focusarea II (unleashing productivity) (39 percent) for financial inclusion and rural finance. ASA supportedall the objectives under the program, and objectives 2 (investment climate/select infrastructuredevelopment) and 5 (fiscal management/public financial information) were exclusively supported byASA. Almost all trust-funded activities (11 out of 13) supported pillar 4 (promoting green and inclusivegrowth), primarily for climate change, energy efficiency, and forest management. The remaining twooperations were for education and affordable housing.

30. During the CPS period, twelve trust-funded projects13 amounting to US$187 million wereapproved (nine for US$111.9 million) or closed (four for US$74.7 million), with twelve supporting focusarea four on green and inclusive growth, and one supporting education. Seventy-five percent of thevolume went to five Global Environmental Fund (GEF) financed projects. They helped developrenewable energy, reduce green-house gas (GHG), induce policy changes in favor of sustainabletransport projects, promote adaptation to the consequences of climate impacts in the coastal wetlandsof the Gulf of Mexico, assess the impacts of climate change on Mexico’s national resource planning,and strengthen the sustainable management of productive landscapes. Four of the GEF-funded

13 Recipient Executed Trust Funds of at least US$5 million.


projects achieved their development objectives at closure, and the one that remains open is making adequate progress.

31. During the CPS period, a total of 16 operations were closed, all of which were reviewed byIEG. Mexico’s performance at exit, measured by outcomes rated Moderately Satisfactory or better byIEG, was slightly better (75 percent of projects and 97 percent weighted by commitments)14 whencompared to the Latin America region (73 percent of projects and 80 percent weighted bycommitments) and World Bank (76 percent of projects and 84 percent weighted by commitments)averages. Most of the projects that closed and were rated Moderately Satisfactory or better supportedfocus areas IV (6) (promoting green and inclusive growth) and II (4) (increasing social prosperity).

32. Of the three projects rated Moderately Unsatisfactory or lower, one was in the water sector,one was in energy, and one in results-based management and budgeting. Under the energy project,the solar facility was not yet commissioned by the project’s closing date and thus did not deliver any ofthe targeted benefits. Even for a sophisticated client like Mexico, projects with innovative technologieshave greater risks than conventional infrastructure projects. Additional time for completing this type ofprojects could be needed to handle all the complications that may be encountered along the way. Onelesson from the water project is that time and effort were spent on processing a number of smallprocurement packages instead of focusing on knowledge sharing and sector policy dialogue. Toadvance innovative approaches that require small-scale procurement, the project’s ICRRrecommends that the Bank could consider grouping procurement items or taking other approaches(more flexible procurement rules with higher thresholds) that promote efficiency without compromisingquality.

33. Overall, IBRD’s Mexico active portfolio performed well. The share of projects at risk (by numberof projects) averaged 17 percent, lower than the LAC region (24 percent) and the World (21 percent).The share of commitments at risk was lower in Mexico (11.4 percent) than in the LAC region (18.6percent) and the World (21.5 percent). Self-ratings of ongoing projects were satisfactory, in line withthe generally good performance of projects at exit in Mexico.

34. At the start of the CPS period, IFC had US$963 million of investments in 23 active projects.During the CPS period, US$1.44 billion in new commitments were made. Of the US$2.4 billion ininvestment active during the period, the largest sectoral exposure was in the finance and insurancesector (with 26 percent), followed by chemicals and industrial & consumer projects (17 percent each).Thirty-eight percent of the new commitments made during the CPF period were in the finance andinsurance sector, followed by transportation and warehousing with 15 percent and chemicals with ninepercent. IFC’s average outstanding short-term commitments under the Global Trade Finance Program(GTFP) was US$2.5 million. IFC’s portfolio in Mexico is the fourth-largest IFC portfolio in the LatinAmerica region and the eighth-largest worldwide.

35. During the CPS period, IEG validated 13 Expanded Project Supervision Reports (XPSRs)wherein nine projects (69%) were rated Moderately Unsuccessful or lower for not reaching theirdevelopment objectives. Of the seven XPSRs that corresponded to investments active during the CPSperiod, four were rated Moderately Unsuccessful or lower (in the education, industrial & consumerproducts, and construction and real estate sectors). Three were rated Moderately Satisfactory orhigher. The substantial proportion of poorly-performing investments (from a development perspective)stands in contrast to the fact that most of the CPS indicators to which IFC contributed were achieved.Only two of the poorly-performing investments were cited in the results indicators in section 5 above.Of the nine projects rated Moderately Unsuccessful or worse, three went into bankruptcy, four hadslower business than expected, one was impacted by a hurricane, and in one management changedstrategic direction. Of the four projects rated Mostly Successful or higher, two were in microfinance,one was in a growth equity fund, and one was in miscellaneous and industrial ores.

14 By volume, 92 percent of projects were rated Satisfactory, with one large project (Support to Oportunidades Project (FY09) amounting to 64 percent of the total.


36. MIGA underwrote a political risk guarantee to a power project amounting to US$962.9 millionduring the review period.

Analytic and Advisory Activities and Services

37. During the CPS period, the World Bank delivered 111 ASA products. Through FY18, for whicha breakdown is available, 12 were economic and sector work (ESW) and 78 were technicalassistance (TA). The ESW included a Public Expenditure Review (PER-FY16) and an UrbanizationReview (FY16). Through the PER the World Bank provided inputs to fiscal consolidation, the 2016budget preparation, and helped enhance subnational fiscal discipline. IEG’s Country ProgramEvaluation (2018) underscored that government financing of the PER demonstrated ownership.

38. The ASA program was organized around programmatic multi-year approaches that providedadvice on sustainable development and infrastructure (12 activities), human development (8activities), and equitable growth, finance, and institutions (8 activities). The programmatic approachallowed a strategic approach to ASA activities (individual activities had to be coherent with the wholeprogram) and its multi-annual framework permitted annual reviews to adjust the program as needed.Under the Bank program, there was substantial demand for Reimbursable Advisory Services (26 inall). IEG’s Country Program Evaluation (2018) noted the significance of the technical assistanceexercise for the Cutzamala River Basin, which included RAS activities and developed a managementplan for safeguarding a critical water supply source for both Mexico City and the Toluca metropolitanarea, benefiting an estimated 5 million people.

39. The World Bank utilized ASA as a major instrument in engaging the authorities in areas suchas financial sector development, fiscal challenges, and urbanization and housing. It was also helpful inthe design of projects such as Expanding Rural Finance (FY19) and Improving Access to AffordableHousing Program (FY17). The ASA supported virtually all the objectives under the program. Notably,the Sound Financial Sector Development PA (FY16) and the RAS Banxico Programmatic (FY17)underpinned the objective on financial inclusion. The PA on Strengthening Subnational Governments(FY19) and PA for the Public Sector in Mexico (FY16) underpinned objective 5 on fiscal management.

40. During the CPS period, IFC began 15 new Advisory Service (AS) projects amounting toUS$11.5 million of IFC funds. Nine projects were terminated due to client disinterest, re-organizationor modification of original project scope. Of these terminated projects, eight were public-privatepartnership (PPP) transaction advisory projects. Only one of these projects had mobilized more than25 percent of its funding (mobilized 59%), and only one had spent more than US$100,000(US$187,000). Of the active projects, two are PPP advisory projects, one is regional businessdevelopment for PPPs, and one is in the financial sector. Two additional AS projects wereimplemented and closed, in the education and manufacturing sectors (the latter focusing on energyefficiency). IEG validated only two Project Completion Reports (PCRs), of which one was ratedSuccessful in development effectiveness (Puertas Finas energy efficiency) and the other was rated asHighly Unsuccessful. The latter attempted to develop new financing instruments with Mexican financialinstitutions, but there was lack of demand for such instruments, and regulatory issues impeded theirfeasibility.

Results Framework

41. The results framework reflected reasonably well the links between the government’s strategy,the CPS objectives and indicators, and the supporting World Bank Group’s interventions. Generally,the objectives addressed critical constraints based on analytical work, were congruent with thegovernment’s strategy, and indicators were measurable. However, there were shortcomings,particularly in targeting outcomes that the World Bank Group can influence through its interventions.As a result, several of the baselines and targets were changed at PLR stage, and some of theindicators were modified or dropped at that stage. Some objectives were significantly broader than theBank’s engagement under those objectives. For example, objective 4 on increased skilled labormarket participation, where the Bank’s interventions were geared to improved access to educationunder some programs. Therefore, at PLR stage the objective was replaced by one focusing oneducation. Similarly, objective 6—increase non-oil public revenues and improve expenditure equity—


was broader than Bank interventions, which focused on transparency and accountability, and subnational fiscal issues. At PLR stage objective 6 was merged with 7 (public sector management and information systems) and 8 (comprehensive risk management framework), and replaced by a new objective focused on fiscal management capacity and adoption of modern information management systems in selected states. Yet, even after the PLR, in some instances the scope of the objective was broader than indicator coverage. The new objective 6—improve capacity for low-carbon urban development management—has a broad scope referring to urban development management, while indicators refer to transport and energy diagnostic tools. Finally, objective 7—improve sustainable management of key natural resources (forests, biodiverse areas, water, and combined renewable energy)—tried to cover too much ground. The objective should have been disaggregated into two – one for sustainable management of natural resources and the other for GHG emissions from renewable energy sources.

Partnerships and Development Partner Coordination

42. The CPS did not articulate any partnership coordination strategy, and the CLR did not reporton cooperation with development partners.

Safeguards and Fiduciary Issues

43. Seventeen projects were closed and validated by IEG during the CPS, of which fifteentriggered at least one safeguard policy in the education, energy, social protection, transport and ICT,water, environmental and natural resources, agriculture, and the finance sectors. According to theCLR, environmental and social risks were generally low in all IBRD operations. The CLR also reportscompliance with the safeguards requirements as achieved throughout the portfolio, and credits WBoversight, close supervision, and capacity building activities for all the stakeholders. Project ICRs andICR reviews confirm these findings with additional details indicating careful attention to the safeguardsby the Bank and the country teams. Operations were faced with environmental waste disposal issues,poor budgeting, delays, weak reporting on safeguards and inadequate coordination betweengovernment agencies. The mitigation measures applied by the Bank and the country includedconsultations with stakeholders, staffing, and alignment of safeguards instruments with the Mexicanlegislation. By project closure, all negative impacts are reported to have been mitigated andsafeguards compliance is rated satisfactory, in both the ICRs and the ICR reviews, with positiveoutcomes on the indigenous population.

44. In April 2016, a request for investigation was submitted to the Inspection Panel byrepresentatives of people resettled during the implementation of a Bank project. After conducting itsdue diligence, the Inspection Panel found that the claims were not associated with a WB-financedoperation.

Ownership and Flexibility

45. Overall, ownership of the CPS was strong. Consultations—which were extensive with thegovernment and stakeholders—were carried out while the authorities that had taken office about ayear earlier were developing specific sector implementation plans and strategies that complementedthe National Development Plan 2013-18. This allowed the WBG to align its interventions with those ofthe authorities. According to the CLR, at the time of the PLR the WBG engagement was adjusted toreflect changes in government demand, which enhanced ownership. The original CPS envisagedsupport for infrastructure development in view of possible requests from the new NationalInfrastructure Plan, which did not materialize. Therefore, support for infrastructure was replaced by adeepening engagement on financial inclusion, support for developing special economic zones (SEZ)in the poor south and southeastern states, strengthening productivity in agriculture, and linking thesocial protection system to productive programs.

WBG Internal Cooperation

46. There are examples that show that the World Bank Group cooperated well internally under theprogram. IFC participated in three out of the four program pillars (financial inclusion, opening localmarkets to private sector, education, housing, and renewable energy). World Bank Group support for


Red Compartida15 is an illustration of World Bank and IFC cooperation. The World Bank provided technical advice to the telecommunications regulator on sectoral competition policies for the Red Compartida program to ensure fair market access. IFC made an equity investment, along with the China-Mexico Fund, to Altán Redes, the company awarded the contract to build and operate the network. In the case of ASA, The World Bank and IFC collaborated in providing technical assistance to improve the efficiency of the Municipal Solid Waste Program, and the World Bank contributed to the review of the national legal framework for integrated waste management with a view to reducing GHG emissions. MIGA also participated through a political risk guarantee in energy sector. Risk Identification and Mitigation

47. The CPS identified key risks – sluggish economic performance affecting pace of reform, littleroom for countercyclical lending in the event of global or local shocks, limited institutional capacity(particularly subnational level), and crime and violence. Failure of reform implementation would affectthe program, and be mitigated by the flexibility embedded in the program. An adverse internationalcontext would likely require additional quick disbursing IBRD financing. Portfolio implementation couldbe affected given expansion of engagement at sub-national level, which the WBG would addressthrough close management of portfolio and programmatic approaches. WBG engagements areconcentrated in areas where there is less crime and violence, and therefore the impact of crime andviolence risks on the program was limited. Lack of counterpart funds affected the implementation ofsome projects such as the Urban Transport Transformation Project (FY10). The WBG response wasto restructure projects to deal with lack of counterpart funds and adjust the scope of projects. At thesubnational level, weak capacity and complex institutional arrangements contributed to projectimplementation delays. Regular pipeline meetings were established with the Secretariat of Financeand Public Credit to discuss subnational external borrowing and weak subnational capacity.

Overall Assessment and Rating

48. Overall, IEG rates World Bank Group performance as Good.

Design

49. The CPS design addressed important development challenges and was congruent withMexico’s National Development Plan 2013-18. On the whole, the program had a focus on reducingpoverty and increasing shared prosperity. Three out of seven CPS objectives at PLR stage had adirect focus on reducing poverty and sharing prosperity, including financial inclusion in underservedrural areas, and/or targeted low-income areas. The team went through a rigorous selectivity exercise.However, the broad scope of some objectives made the original program less selective in terms ofcoverage than it appeared, as in the case of skilled labor participation, non-oil public revenue andexpenditure equity, public sector management, and risk management framework. In the originaldesign, there was a weak link between some objectives and their indicators. The PLR recognized thatthe coverage of objectives was broader than the program’s intentions and merged and/or changed anumber of objectives. The program’s expectations to increase non-oil public revenues and improveexpenditure equity were reduced, and its original expectations to put in place an integrated andcomprehensive risk management framework were slightly reduced. Still, after the PLR, someobjectives (natural resources and renewable energy) were compound objectives with broad coveragethat would require trimming for more selectivity.

Implementation

50. In terms of implementation, project performance at exit was better than the LAC region andthe overall World Bank. Just three out of 17 projects that exited during the CPS were rated ModeratelyUnsatisfactory or lower. The World Bank was generally proactive through country portfolioperformance reviews, which provided solutions to issues in the implementation of several projects.Such issues arose from expenditure cuts that affected project implementation after 2016, to weakcapacity and complex institutional arrangements at the subnational level. However, for some of the

15 Red Compartida is the network resulting from the Mexican Government’s 2014-2016 effort to overhaul its telecommunications industry by introducing competition into the marketplace.

17CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group

World Bank ongoing operations (e.g. Urban Transport Transformation project [FY10]) implementation issues were difficult to resolve despite the World Bank’s proactivity. The programmatic approach to ASA allowed a strategic approach to activities (individual activities had to have coherence with the whole program) and its multi-annual framework permitted annual reviews to adjust the program as needed.

51. IFC participated in three out of the four program pillars, and its contributions helped withfinancial inclusion, opening local markets to private sector, education, housing, and renewable energy.However, five out of eight XPSRs for IFC investments active during the CPS period that validated byIEG were Unsuccessful or Highly Unsuccessful. They were in education services, industrial andconsumer products, and construction and real estate. This had a limited impact on the achievement ofCPS objectives but indicates some shortcomings in the IFC portfolio. Likewise, several AdvisoryServices projects were terminated (although before much work was done as evidenced by the lowlevel of spending on them) due to lack of client interest, mostly for public-private partnershiptransactions. MIGA also participated with a political risk guarantee in the energy sector.

52. The CLR did not provide a sufficient description of how IFC, MIGA, and World Bankcoordinated their work in areas where they had complementary activities, such as energy.

7. Assessment of CLR Completion Report

53. The CLR provided an assessment of CPS design and World Bank Group implementationperformance, but the evidence and analysis provided was uneven. First, it did not provide anassessment of the results framework, and the discussion of the substantial ASA program contributionto objectives was inadequate. Under some objectives, ASA contributions were not discussed. Second,the CLR did not provide a sufficient discussion of how IFC, MIGA, and World Bank coordinated theirwork in areas where they had complementary activities, such as energy and finance.

8. Findings and Lessons

54. The CLR provided four lessons: (i) flexibility in the WBG’s engagement was key to respondingrapidly to the country’s development needs, (ii) supporting Mexico’s role as a global knowledge leaderprovides important insights for the global public goods agenda, (iii) close collaboration within the WBGhas been critical to creating an appropriate business environment, and succeeding in crowding inprivate sector solutions, and (iv) the use of the full suite of WBG services and instruments ofengagement with the public and private sectors is a good example of the World Bank’s relevance inupper-middle-income countries, such as Mexico.

55. IEG broadly agrees with these lessons, with nuances. On flexibility, indeed there was somerefocusing of resources at PLR stage as explained in footnote 9, but this was minor compared with theradical changes under the previous (FY08-FY13) strategy in response to the effects of the globalfinancial crisis. On collaboration within the WBG, the role of IFC was significant, and MIGA played itspart, but the CLR only briefly mentions IBRD, IFC, and MIGA coordination under the program.

56. Under the Mexico CPS for FY14-FY19, World Bank Group supported the government ofMexico to implement interventions that were targeted to addressing the country’s development goalsand were broadly focused on reducing poverty and improving shared prosperity. There was a degreeof selectivity, and there was strong ownership of the CPS by the authorities. World Bank, IFC, andMIGA interventions complemented each other, but the degree to which the institutions workedtogether was not explained explicitly in the CLR. There were shortcomings in measuring the program’sintended results and outcomes. There was a weak link between some of the CPS objectives and theirindicators, especially in the original design, and there could have been a greater outcome orientationin some cases. For instance, access to education was measured, but quality was not, and aspects offiscal management capacity were measured, but the quality of fiscal management itself was not.Nevertheless, the program made important contributions to Mexico’s development –

18CLR Review Independent Evaluation Group

telecommunications backbone infrastructure (Red Compartida) and access to finance for individuals and firms stand out in particular.

Annexes 19 CLR Review

Independent Evaluation Group

Annex Table 1: Summary of Achievements of CAS Objectives – Mexico Annex Table 2: Planned and Actual Lending for Mexico FY14-19 (US$, millions) Annex Table 3: Advisory Services and Analytics Work for Mexico, FY14-FY19 Annex Table 4: Mexico Trust Funds Active in FY14-FY19 (US$) Annex Table 5: IEG Project Ratings for Mexico, FY14-FY19 Annex Table 6: IEG Project Ratings for Mexico and Comparators, FY14-FY19 Annex Table 7: Portfolio Status for Mexico and Comparators, FY14-FY19 Annex Table 8: Total Net Disbursements of Official Development Assistance for Mexico FY14-FY19 (US$, millions) Annex Table 9: Economic and Social Indicators for Mexico, FY14-FY19 Annex Table 10: List of IFC Investments in Mexico (US$, millions) Annex Table 11: List of IFC Advisory Services in Mexico (US$, millions) Annex Table 12: IFC net commitment activity in Mexico, FY14 - FY19 (US$, millions) Annex Table 13: List of MIGA Projects Active in Mexico, FY14-FY19 (US$, millions)

Annexes

21


Annex Table 1: Summary of Achievements of CPS Objectives – Mexico CPS FY14-FY19: Focus Area I:

Unleashing Productivity Actual Results

IEG Comments

Major Outcome Measures

1. CPS Objective: Improved financial inclusion for productive purposes Indicator 1: Number of clients [persons] mainstreamed into formal financial sector. Baseline: 7.12 million (2014) Target: 8 million (2016)

The April 2017 ISR: S of P123367 reports that 9.35 million clients were mainstreamed into the formal sector as of December 2016. The IEG ICRR: S of P123367 reports that by June 2017, the number of clients mainstreamed was 9.5 million. Achieved

The objective was supported by the Savings and Credit Sector Consolidation and Financial Inclusion Project (P123367, FY12) and the following ASAs: Catalyzing Financial Sector Development and its subtasks (P161933, FY19), PA Sound Financial Sector Development and its subtasks (P133788, FY16), RAS Banxico Programmatic and its subtask (P154294, FY17), Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) Update (P159016, FY17), Mexico Financial Capabilities Assessment (P122665, FY14), and the Oaxaca Engagement Mexico Programmatic Approach and its subtask (P150063, FY16). At the PLR stage, the indicator baseline/target was modified from the original: Baseline: NA Target: 1.6 million (July 2015)

Indicator 2: Number of additional MSMEs in the rural economy with access to credit (of which 60 percent are female) (cumulative). Baseline: 0 (2015) Target: 22,222 (2018) (of which 13,333 female)

The May 2019 ISR: S of P153338 reports that there were 118,107 unique MSME beneficiaries financed by the project as of December 2018, of which 86.04% were female (101,619). IEG notes that this indicator captures the number of borrowers supported through this project specifically, regardless of whether they had access to credit through other sources. Achieved

The objective was supported by the Expanding Rural Finance (P153338, FY16).

Indicator 3: IFC: Number (#) and volume (US$) of MSME loans in outstanding portfolio. Number Baseline: 2.2 million (2012) Target: 4.07 million (2018) Volume Baseline: 3,72 billion (2014) Target: 4.3 billion (2018)

The CLR reports that as of December 2017, that there were 3.79 million loans with a volume of US$4.08 billion to MSMEs generated by investments supported by IFC. These figures include the clients Compartamos, Banco del Bajio and Bankaool which exited IFC’s portfolio before 2017. IEG can confirm from the IFC DOTS database that during the CPS period,

The objective was supported by the following investments: Compartamos Loan (29634), Agrofinanzas RI (32065), Bajio (35032), Progresemos IV (36410), DCM CAMESA PCG II (37284), Mifel (29030), Konfio Debt (40491) and Contigo I (38960) and the following advisory services Progresemos DFS (603142) and PBGI Learng&RF (599630).

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/710091526397044238/pdf/Mexico-MX-Savings-and-Credit-Sector-Loan.pdf




http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/278741559055805106/pdf/Disclosable-Version-of-the-ISR-MX-Expanding-Rural-Finance-P153338-Sequence-No-07.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/278741559055805106/pdf/Disclosable-Version-of-the-ISR-MX-Expanding-Rural-Finance-P153338-Sequence-No-07.pdf

Annexes 22


CPS FY14-FY19: Focus Area I: Unleashing Productivity

Actual Results IEG Comments

IFC supported investments generated 3.7 million loans with a volume of US$4.1 billion. Mostly Achieved

At the PLR stage, the indicator was modified from the original: Volume of new loans to SMEs in the portfolio of financial intermediaries. Baseline: 2.9 million (2012) Target: 3.4 million

Indicator 4: IFC: Number of new issuers in the capital markets with IFC’s Support. Baseline: 1 (2012) Target:4 (2018)

IFC supported three bond issuances by Camesa during the CPS period, two in 2015 and another in 2017 (IFC client supervision report). Mostly Achieved

The objective was supported by investments in Camesa (34538, 37284). At the PLR stage, the indicator baseline/target was modified from the original: Number of new issuances in the capital markets. Baseline: 1 Target: 4

2. CPS Objective: Improved investment climate in target states and select infrastructure development for productive purposes

Indicator 1: Number of recommended regulations/amendments/codes adopted in SEZ states. Baseline: 0 (2013) Target: 9 (2018)

The CLR reports that 9 recommendations/amendments/code were adopted. The completion report of P158466, a subtask of P146293, show that: • The recommended Federal Law on

Special Economic Zones informed by WBG advisory support was adopted on June 1, 2016.

• The recommended implementing regulations for the Federal Law on Special Economic Zones informed by WBG advisory support were adopted on June 30, 2016.

• At least 18 specific provisions recommended for incorporation by the WBG were accepted in the final SEZ law and implementing regulations.

Achieved

The objective was supported by the following ASA Mexico Productivity Democratization Programmatic Approach and its subtasks (P146293, FY19), Supporting Mexico’s SEZ (P160599, FY19), Oxaca Regulatory Barriers to Competition (P150476, FY14), and the Oaxaca Judiciary RAAP (P155064, FY16). At the PLR stage, the indicator was modified from the original: Number of recommended laws/regulations/amendments/codes enacted or government policies adopted to improve competition at subnational level. Baseline: 0 Target: 30

Indicator 2: IFC: Containers Handled (Millions TEU Containers)/Port Operations. Baseline: 0 (2014) Target: 1.67 (2018)

The IFC DOTS database show that IFC investments resulted in 0.36 Million TEU containers as of 2017 and 0.76 Million TEU in 2018. Partially Achieved

The objective was supported by the following investments: APM TEC (31939) and Tuxpan (32817).

Indicator 3: IFC: Number of farmers integrated into the

The CLR reports that as of December 2017, that 11,022 farmers integrated into the agribusiness value chain

The objective was supported by the following investments: Agrofinanzas RI (32065), NORSON (32826),

Annexes 23


CPS FY14-FY19: Focus Area I: Unleashing Productivity

Actual Results IEG Comments

agribusiness value chain through projects financed by IFC. Baseline: 5,300 (2012) Target: 8,630 (2018)

through investments supported by IFC. This figure includes the client Bankaool which exited IFC’s portfolio before 2017. IEG can confirm from the IFC DOTS database that during the CPS period, IFC investments reached 12,013 farmers. Achieved

Acuagranjas Exp (34073) and Bioparques 3 (37826). At the PLR stage, the indicator baseline/target was modified from the original: Baseline: 5,500 Target: 7,000

Indicator 4: IFC: New private sector investments facilitated by IFC in opportunities generated by the Mexican reforms. Baseline: US$285 million (IFC’s own account) and US$630 million (IFC’s own account plus mobilization) (2014) Target: US$700 million (IFC’s own account) and US$1.5 billion (IFC’s own account plus mobilization) (2019)

The IFC’s Mexico Strategy FY20-25 document reports that there were US$1.3 billion (IFC’s own account) or US$2.3 billion (IFC’s own account plus mobilization) of new private sector investments in FY19. The IFC team identified four investment projects specifically linked to the Mexican reforms, totaling US$148.9 million in net IFC commitments (IFC’s own account) and US$410 million in mobilization, for a total of US$558.9 million (IFC’s own account plus mobilization). Three of these projects have a total value of US$1,158.9 million, and the fourth is projected to reach US$7 billion. Beyond these four projects, it is unclear how much of the IFC’s investment during the CPS period was in opportunities generated by the Mexican reforms. Partially Achieved

The objective was supported by IFC investments Potrero Solar (41297), Solem (40372, 40373, 40374, 40375), Citla Energy (37179), and Wave Catcher (38474). At the PLR stage, the indicator was modified from the original: New private sector investment in oil, gas, petrochemicals and telecommunications sectors. Baseline: US$600 million Target: US$1.5 billion

CPS FY14-FY19: Focus Area II: Increasing Social Prosperity Actual Results IEG Comments


3. CPS Objective: Improved access and quality in target education programs Indicator 1: Gross failure rate (%) among basic (primary & secondary) education schools in programs to strengthen School based Management (SBM). Programa de la Reforma Educativa Baseline: • Primary: 1.10 (2014) • Secondary: 3.32 (2014)

Target: • Primary: 0.95 (2018) • Secondary: 2.5 (2018)

The IEG ICRR:S of P147185 reports that the gross failure rate were the following as of December 2018 for both the Programa de la Reforma Educativa (PRE) and Programa de Escuelas de Tiempo Completo (PETC): • Primary: 1.44% • Secondary: 7.84% Both the ICR and ICRR did not report the gross failure rates separately for the two programs as a result of project restructuring. The

The objective was supported by the MX School Based Management Project (P147185, FY15) and the ASA Knowledge Agenda of the Educational Reform in Mexico (P164777, FY19). At the PLR stage, the indicator modified from the original: Improvements in ENLACE scores (Math and Spanish in primary and secondary schools, including students living in marginalized areas). 2-year moving average of

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/782981569599360238/pdf/Mexico-MX-School-Based-Management-Project.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/782981569599360238/pdf/Mexico-MX-School-Based-Management-Project.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/318541561733499394/pdf/Mexico-School-Based-Management-Project.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/318541561733499394/pdf/Mexico-School-Based-Management-Project.pdf

Annexes 24



Programa de Escuelas de Tiempo Completo Baseline: • Primary: 1.00 (2014) • Secondary: 3.85 (2014)

Target: • Primary: 0.92 (2018) • Secondary: 3.18 (2018)

new baseline of the project-level indicator was: • Primary: 1.1% (2014) • Secondary: 7.79% (2013/14) Considering even the new baselines, the results of P147185 show a marginal increase in failure rates. Not Achieved

ENLACE test scores across school years (SY). Baseline: (SY11 & SY12) Spanish primary: 546 Math Primary: 557 Spanish secondary: 490 Math secondary: 522 Target (SY2017 & SY2018) Spanish primary: 610 Math Primary: 620 Spanish secondary: 550 Math secondary: 570 IEG evaluates the achievement of the indicator using the targets as reported in the PLR.

Indicator 2: Transition rate (%) from primary to secondary education for the graduates of CONAFE administered schools in selected National Crusade against Hunger (CNCH) municipalities. Baseline: 63 (2014) Target:70 (2018)

The ICR: MS of P149858 reports that the transition rate from primary to secondary education for the graduates of CONAFE administered schools in selected National Crusade against Hunger (CNCH) municipalities was 70% as of December 2018. Achieved

The objective was supported by the Mexico Reducing Inequality of Educational Opportunity Project (P149858, FY15). At the PLR stage, the indicator baseline/target was modified from the original: % of Oportunidades/PROSPERA youth registered with the Servicio Nacional de Empleo. Baseline: Does not exist Target: 2% in 2018 (Disaggregated by sex)

Indicator 3: IFC: Number of students enrolled in higher level institutions financed by IFC (of which female). Baseline: 52,000 (of which 26,000 female) (2012) Target: 105,000 (of which 52,000 female) (2018)

The CLR reports that as of 2017, that there were 92,122 students (of which 47,862 were female) enrolled as a result of investments supported by IFC. This figure includes Finem which exited IFC’s portfolio before 2017. IEG can confirm from the IFC DOTS database that during the CPS period, IFC supported investments resulted in 92,224 enrolled students (of which 47,725 were female). Mostly Achieved

The objective was supported by the following investments: FINEM SME (28680), UAG University (30445), Harmon Hall (29753), the advisory services EduMex (602355) and Laureate Results Measurement (600356). At the PLR stage, the indicator baseline/target was modified from the original: Baseline: 52,000 (26,000 female) Target: 70,000 (37,000 female)

4. CPS Objective: Improved access to and integration of the social protection system Indicator 1: Number of PROSPERA beneficiaries that participate in social programs (of which female)

The June 2019 ISR: S of P147212 reports that were 1,797,097 beneficiaries that participated in

The objective was supported by the Social Protection System (P147212, FY15) and the following

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/290481561775984112/pdf/Mexico-Reducing-Inequality-of-Educational-Opportunity-Project.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/290481561775984112/pdf/Mexico-Reducing-Inequality-of-Educational-Opportunity-Project.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/436171560295828111/pdf/Disclosable-Version-of-the-ISR-MX-Social-Protection-System-P147212-Sequence-No-10.pdf


Annexes 25



Baseline: 465,842 (of which X female) (2014) Target: 726,779 (of which X female) (2018)

social programs as of December 2018. Achieved

ASAs: Mexico Social Protection and Labor Engagement (P163477, FY20), Support the strengthening of the Mexico SP System and its focus on wellbeing, nutritional status and food security (P156025, FY18), Social Protection System Programmatic Approach II and its subtasks (P148162, FY17), and the Social Protection and Health (P129698, FY14). At the PLR stage, the indicator was modified from the original: % of eligible PROSPERA families registered in the PROSPERA program. Baseline: does not exist. (methodology changed in 2014) Target 30%

Indicator 2: Number of PROSPERA beneficiaries that participate in productive programs. Baseline: 14,370 (2014) Target: 22,402 (2018)

The June 2019 ISR: S of P147212 reports that were 318,217beneficiaries that participated in productive programs as of December 2017. Achieved

The objective was supported by the Social Protection System (P147212, FY15). At the PLR stage, the indicator was modified from the original: Average unsatisfied basic needs of the extreme poor population Baseline: 3.7 (2009) Target: 3.0 (2018) As per the shared approach, IEG evaluates the achievement of the indicator using the targets in the PLR.

Indicator 3: Number of instruments implemented for an integrated social information system. Baseline: 0 (2014) Target: 5 (2018)

The June 2019 ISR: S of P147212 reports that were 7 instruments implemented for an integrated social information system as of December 2018. Achieved

The objective wa supported by the Social Protection System (P147212, FY15). At the PLR stage, the indicator was modified from the original: Percentage of poor registered in the Unified Registry of Beneficiaries. Baseline: Not available (2014) Target: 40% (2018)

Indicator 4: IFC: Number of low-income patients treated by private health-care providers financed by IFC. Baseline: 226,000 (2012)

The CLR reports that as of 2017, that there were 319,873 patients treated as a result of investments supported by IFC. This figure includes results from the client Controladora de Servicios Médicos

The objective was supported by the investments Centro Médico Puertas de Hierro (26323/27603), Hospitaria (30281), Sala Uno (33770), and UAG University (30445).





Annexes 26



Target: 260,000 (2018) which exited IFC portfolio before 2017. IEG can confirm from the IFC DOTS database that during the CPS period that 348,341 patients were reached/served. However, it is unclear what the share of low-income patients is to the total as the IFC projects supported low to middle-income patients. Not Verified

At the PLR stage, the baseline and target years were added.

CPS FY14-FY19: Focus Area III: Strengthening Public Finances

and Government Efficiency Actual Results

IEG Comments


5. CPS Objective: Improved fiscal management capacity and increased adoption of modern public financial or information management mechanisms in selected states.

Indicator 1: Number of states that are in compliance with reporting requirements under the new Fiscal Discipline Law for Subnational Entities. Baseline: 0 (2014) Target: at least 5 (2018)

The Secretary of Finance and Public Credit report that 31 states were in compliance with reporting requirements under the new Fiscal Discipline Law for Subnational Entities as of June 2018 (website). Achieved

The objective was supported by the following ASAs: Subnational Fiscal Topics (P156737, FY19), TA-Strengthening Subnational Governments in Mexico (P162751, FY19), Strengthening Unplanned Debt Prevention for Subnational Governments in Mexico (P162975, FY18), Fiscal Challenges PKS and its subtasks (P143967, FY15), and the Programmatic Approach for Public Sector in Mexico and its subtasks(P132906, FY16). At the PLR stage, the indicator was modified from the original: Taxes as a percentage of GDP Baseline: Non-oil Federal revenues as a percentage of GDP: 15.0% Subnational revenues as a percentage of GDP: 0.93% (2012) Target: Non-oil Federal revenues as a percentage of GDP: 18% Subnational revenues as a percentage of GDP: 2.0 % (2019)

Indicator 2: Number of states that have joined the disaster risk transfer pool proposed by the Federal Government. Baseline: 0 (2014) Target: 6 (2018)

The activity completion summary of P146241 reports that three states (Oaxaca, San Luis Potosi and Hidalgo) implemented the pilot mechanism creating a pool to transfer their disaster risk to the market.

The objective was supported by the following ASAs: Agriculture Risk Management in Mexico (P132987, FY15), Strengthening DRM in Mexico (P146241, FY16), and the RAS Programmatic Engagement in DRM (P130848, FY15).

https://www.disciplinafinanciera.hacienda.gob.mx/es/DISCIPLINA_FINANCIERA/Entidades_Federativas_2018

https://www.disciplinafinanciera.hacienda.gob.mx/es/DISCIPLINA_FINANCIERA/Entidades_Federativas_2018

Annexes 27


CPS FY14-FY19: Focus Area III: Strengthening Public Finances

and Government Efficiency Actual Results

IEG Comments

Partially Achieved At the PLR stage, the indicator was modified from the original: Integrated system for risk management adopted by Federal Government. b) Comprehensive disaster risk management strategy adopted that balances efforts in risk identification, risk prevention and management, and post-disaster reconstruction. c) Comprehensive agriculture risk management (ARM) strategy adopted that improves the efficiency of agricultural insurance markets and sets effective mechanisms to manage risks arising from price volatility in agricultural commodities.

Indicator 3: Number of states that have adopted at least one new recommended mechanism to improve their public financial or information management. Baseline: 0 (2014) Target: at least 5 (2018)

CLR reports that the states of Oaxaca, Mexico City, Veracruz, Jalisco, Morelos, Guanajuato, and Puebla have adopted at least one recommendation to improve their public financial or information system. IEG cannot verify that recommendations have been adopted for Mexico City as the completion reports of P157558 notes that the recommendations of the RAS were medium to long-term in nature. IEG can confirm that recommendations have been adopted/implemented in Oaxaca (P129050), Guanajuato, Jalisco and Morelos (P152808 and its subtasks), Veracruz (P156949), and Puebla (P144701). Achieved

The objective was supported by the following ASAs: Strengthening Public Sector Management Systems in Mexico City (P157558, FY18), RAS Improving Evidence Based Policy and its subtasks (P152808, FY17), Reimbursable Advisory Services for Strengthening Public Sector Management (P129050, FY16), Fostering accountability and efficiency in public service delivery in Puebla (P144701, FY16) At the PLR stage, the indicator was modified from the original: Increase in transparency and Access to Fiscal Information Index Baseline: average 70.8 (2012) Target: 10% increase (2018)

CPS FY14-FY19: Focus Area IV: Promoting Green and Inclusive

Growth Actual Results

IEG Comments


6. CPS Objective: Improved capacity for low-carbon urban development management Indicator 1: GHG emissions avoided or reduced in cities supported by Bank projects in the

The CLR reports that 936,846 tCO2e from P107159 and P114012, 1,753,171 tCO2e from

The objective was supported by the Urban Transport Transformation Program

Annexes 28




IEG Comments

energy and transport sectors (tCO2e). Baseline: 58,000 (2014) Target: 827,919 (2018)

P106424/P120654, and 32,600 tCO2e from P149872 of GHG emissions were avoided and reduced (total of 2,722,617 tCO2e). However, the figures cited for P107159/P114012 are for projected lifetime GHG emission reductions. Based on project documents, the GHG emissions avoided or reduced: • 0.15 million tCO2e/year was

avoided as of November 2018 (December 2018 ISR: MU of P107159). By April 2019, emissions reductions were reduced to 46,842 tCO2e/year as a result of adjusting former estimates with known demand of levels in project areas (ICR: U)

• 5,074,000 tons of CO2 reductions as of June 2014 (IEG ICRR: S of P106424). The June 2014 ISR: S reports that 3,320,829 tons of CO2 has been reduced as of December 2013. The total accumulated reduction during the CPS period then is 1.7 million tons of CO2.

• 62,864 tCO2e per year as of November 2011 (IEG ICRR: MS of P114012)

• 32,600 tons/year of CO2 as of December 2018 (December 2018 ISR: MS of P149872)

The projects cited by the CLR does not measure the emission reductions using the same unit as the indicator. The results of P106424 show that at least 1.7 million tons of CO2 reduced during the CPS period. It should be noted, however, that the emissions reduction from P106424 occurred early in the between December 2013 and June 2014, early in the CPS period. Achieved

(P107159, FY10), Efficient lighting and appliances (P106424/P120654, FY11), Sustainable Transport and Air Quality (P114012, FY10), the Municipal Energy Efficiency Project (P149872, FY16) and its additional financing (P160778, FY18) and the following ASAs: Programmatic Approach for the Agenda on Sustainable Transport (P164937, FY19), Social risk management and benefit sharing analysis for wind power sector in Oaxaca, Mexico (P161977, FY18), Greening Electricity Generation (P132533, FY14), Urban and Housing PA and its subtasks (P147899, FY17), and the Urban Environmental Services and its subtasks (P149131, FY16). At the PLR stage, the indicator was modified from the original: Reduction in GHG emissions attributable to: (i) the energy efficiency projects Baseline: 0 (2012) End Target: 9 MtCO2e (2019) (ii) other initiatives: PMR, CCS, and GV & FR (each program to set specific baselines and targets) As per the shared approach, IEG evaluates the achievement of the indicator using the targets in the PLR. The different projects measured emission reductions differently: tons vs tons/year.

Indicator 2: Number of large and intermediate cities using the Municipal Energy Diagnostics Tools developed by the Bank (i.e. Tool for Rapid Assessment of City

The CLR reports that municipal energy diagnostics using tools developed by the World Bank were deployed in 35 Mexican municipalities, and another 12 municipalities participated in a CURB

The objective was supported by the Efficient lighting and appliances (P106424/P120654, FY11), the Municipal Energy Efficiency Project (P149872,

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/142591544753248070/pdf/Disclosable-Version-of-the-ISR-MX-Urban-Transport-Transformation-Progr-P107159-Sequence-No-16.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/142591544753248070/pdf/Disclosable-Version-of-the-ISR-MX-Urban-Transport-Transformation-Progr-P107159-Sequence-No-16.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/812271572880926537/pdf/Mexico-Urban-Transport-Transformation-Project.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/812271572880926537/pdf/Mexico-Urban-Transport-Transformation-Project.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/959221472852941772/pdf/ICRR-Disclosable-P106424-09-02-2016-1472852934950.pdf




https://wbdocs.worldbank.org/wbdocs/component/drl?objectId=090224b08252566d&standalone=true&Reload=1578347780498&__dmfClientId=1578347780498&respositoryId=WBDocs

https://wbdocs.worldbank.org/wbdocs/component/drl?objectId=090224b08252566d&standalone=true&Reload=1578347780498&__dmfClientId=1578347780498&respositoryId=WBDocs





http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/669951545042339645/pdf/Disclosable-Version-of-the-ISR-Mexico-Municipal-Energy-Efficiency-Project-P149872-Sequence-No-06.pdf


Annexes 29




IEG Comments

Energy-TRACE, Climate Action for Urban Sustainability-CURB). Baseline: 2 pilot cities (2013) Target: 42 additional cities (2018)

capacity building training under P149872. IEG can verify the following: • The IEG ICRR: S of P106424

reports that more than 30 cities across the country used TRACE to diagnose potential energy efficiency investments.

• The Aide Memoire of P149872 (July 10-14, 2017) reports that Huajuapan de León implemented TRACE.

• Penjamo conducted TRACE analysis with support from the WB (Evaluación Rápida del Uso de la Energía – Penjamo).

• The December 2018 ISR: MS of P149872 reports that there were 213 participants in consultation activities (including CURB training) as of December 2018. However, the project does not monitor if the municipalities implemented the CURB diagnostic tool.

• Thirteen municipalities and two states participated in a CURB training supported by the WB in April 2018 (CURB Training Final Report, P149872).

Overall, IEG can verify that TRACE was implemented in 32 cities. Thirteen municipalities and two states participated in a CURB training, but IEG could not verify if the CURB diagnostic tool was implemented after the training. Mostly Achieved

FY16) and its additional financing (P160778, FY18), and the ASA TRACE Model in Pilot Cities in Latin America (P133060, FY15). At the PLR stage, the indicator was modified from the original: Expanded use of TRACE to several large and intermediate cities Baseline: 2 pilot cities End Target: 10 additional cities

Indicator 3: IFC: Number of projects with Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies (EDGE) certification. Baseline: 2 (2012) Target: at least 5 (2018)

The CLR reports that IFC contributed to the final certification of four projects (2 in the State of Mexico and 2 in the State of Veracruz). IEG can verify from the documents of 601095 that 3 projects received certification during the CPS period. Another EDGE certificate was issued to Vinte, however it was issued in FY12 (prior to the CPS period). Mostly Achieved

The objective was supported by the IFC AS EDGE LAC Voluntary Program (601095). At the PLR stage, the baseline was changed from 2 to 3 and baseline/target years were added.



https://wbdocs.worldbank.org/wbdocs/component/drl?objectId=090224b08548b220&standalone=true&Reload=1580169623740&__dmfClientId=1580169623740&respositoryId=WBDocs






Annexes 30




IEG Comments

7. CPS Objective: Improved sustainable management of key natural resources (i.e., forests, biodiverse areas, water, and combined renewable energy)

Indicator 1: Forest area under sustainable management practices and conservation schemes (hectares). Baseline: 3,860,331 (2014) Target: 4,500,000 (2017)

In 2016, Mexico increased the area under sustainable management practices to 4.4 million hectares, but this result was not sustained. The IEG ICRR: S reports that as of February 2018, 3,935,984 ha were under sustainable management practices. Partially Achieved

The objective was supported by the Mexico Forests and Climate Change Project (P123760, FY12) and the following ASA: Forests and Climate Change: Building Low-Carbon and Resilient Landscapes and its subtasks (P160730, FY19).t the PLR stage, the indicator was modified from the original: Increase in Forest under improved management and reduced carbon emissions. Baseline: 163 million ha (2012) Target: 10% Improvement in 5 years As per the shared approach, IEG evaluates the achievement of the indicator using the targets in the PLR.

Indicator 2: Area brought under enhanced biodiversity protection (hectares). Baseline: 0 (2013) Target: 1,134,500 (2018)

The CLR reports that there were 1,816,694 ha. brought under enhanced biodiversity: 68,490 ha. from P121116 and 1,748,204 ha. from P131709. However, the 68,490 ha. figure is actually the target for the project indicator of P121116, not the actual result. In addition, the figure from P131709 was measured as of May 2019, whereas the target year for the indicator is 2018. Areas brought under enhanced biodiversity protection: • 67,345 ha. as of September 2018

(December 2018 ISR: MS of P121116)

• 1,256,219 ha. as of October 2018 (November 2018 ISR: S of P131709)

In total. 1,323,564 ha. were brought under enhanced biodiversity protection. Achieved

The objective was supported by the Sustainable Production Systems and Biodiversity (P121116, FY13) and the Coastal Watersheds Conservation in the Context of Climate Change Project (P131709, FY14).

Indicator 3: Number of water utilities whose global efficiency increases by 2 percent.

The IEG ICRR: MU of P121195 reports that 8 water utilities increased their

The objective was supported by the Efficiency Improvement Program (P121195, FY11) and

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/860551543249938935/pdf/Mexico-MX-Forests-and-Climate-Change-SIL.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/860551543249938935/pdf/Mexico-MX-Forests-and-Climate-Change-SIL.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/557661545622128197/pdf/Disclosable-Version-of-the-ISR-Sustainable-Production-Systems-and-Biodiversity-P121116-Sequence-No-13.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/557661545622128197/pdf/Disclosable-Version-of-the-ISR-Sustainable-Production-Systems-and-Biodiversity-P121116-Sequence-No-13.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/374481541549059888/pdf/Disclosable-Version-of-the-ISR-Coastal-Watersheds-Conservation-in-the-Context-of-Climate-Change-Project-P131709-Sequence-No-11.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/374481541549059888/pdf/Disclosable-Version-of-the-ISR-Coastal-Watersheds-Conservation-in-the-Context-of-Climate-Change-Project-P131709-Sequence-No-11.pdf



Annexes 31




IEG Comments

Baseline: 0 (2010) Target: 5 (2016)

global efficiency by 2 percent as of June 2016. Achieved

the following ASA Strengthening Water Security and Resilience in Mexico (P162473, FY19), Water Sector Adaptation Technical Cooperation Program (P122166, FY14), and the RAS Development of an Improved Management Plan for the Cutzamala Water System, Phase II (P157058, FY16). At the PLR stage, the indicator baseline and target were added.

Indicator 4: Power generated from renewable sources supported by WBG projects (i.e. eolic, solar, combined, biomass) (GWh). Baseline: 1,005 (2014) Target: 3,838 (2018)

The CLR reports that 221.62 GWh from P106261, 1,311 GWh from P077717, and 949 GWh from the IFC renewable energy investments (28434) (total 2,482 GWh). However, the CLR states that the figure from P077717 includes extrapolated data from August 2016-August 2018. P077717 closed in April 2016. Based on project documents, the power generated from renewable sources: • 221,624 MWh from biomass as of

June 2018 (ICR: S of P106261) • 287 GWh/year from renewable

energy sources as of December 2015 (IEG ICRR: S of P077717) or 1,069 GWh until July 2016 (ICR: S)

• 1,167 GWh from solar energy as of April 2017 (IEG ICRR: U of P066426)

• 949 GWh produced as of 2015 (28434 DOTS).

WBG interventions resulted in at least 3,406.6 GWh was generated from renewable resources. Mostly Achieved

The objective was supported by the Sustainable Rural Development (P106261, FY09), GEF Large Scale RE Development (La Venta 3) (P077717, FY06), Hybrid Solar Thermal (Agua Prieta) (P066426, FY07) and the ASA Programmatic approach for the energy sector in Mexico: Supporting a low-carbon economy and its subtasks (P150562, FY18). In addition, the IFC investment Eurus (28434) and the AS Puertas Finas Resource Efficiency (600332) also supported the objective. At the PLR stage, the indicator was modified from the original: Increased eolic energy production and avoided emission of MtCO2 (La Venta III) Production Baseline: 0 Target: 2,200 GW

Indicator 5: GHG emissions avoided or reduced from renewable sources supported by WBG projects (eolic, solar, combined, biomass) (tCO2e). Baseline: 594,973 (2014) Target: 4,500,000 (2018)

The CLR reports that 6,021,967 tCO2e from P106261; 809,120 tCO2e from P077717; and 821 tCO2e from P066426 of GHG emissions were reduced for a total of 6,831,907.9 tCO2e (2018). However, the CLR states that the figure from P077717 includes extrapolated data from August

The objective was supported by the Mexico Forests and Climate Change Project (P123760, FY12), Sustainable Energy Technologies Development for Climate Change (P145618, FY15), Sustainable Rural Development (P106261, FY09), GEF Large Scale RE

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/289121545939897533/pdf/icr4492-12192018-636810265599229101.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/289121545939897533/pdf/icr4492-12192018-636810265599229101.pdf



http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/360541478181254405/pdf/ICR-Main-Document-P077717-2016-10-31-00-17-10312016.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/360541478181254405/pdf/ICR-Main-Document-P077717-2016-10-31-00-17-10312016.pdf



Annexes 32




IEG Comments

2016-August 2018. P077717 closed in April 2016. GHG emissions avoided or reduced from renewable sources: • Average reduction was 10,907

gigagrams of CO2e as of February 2018 (ICR: S of P123760)

• 3.17 million metric ton CO2e of potential future emission reductions from the project as of December 2018 (December 2018 ISR: MS of P145618).

• 6,021,967 tons of CO2e reduced as of June 2018 (IEG ICRR: S of P106261)

• 659,634 tCO2e reduced as of July 2016 or an average of 177,594 tons of CO2e reduced per year as of December 2015 (IEG ICRR: S of P077717)

• 139 thousand tons of CO2e per year reduced as of October 2015 (IEG ICRR: MU of P088996/P095038)

• 11,833 tCO2e as of April 2017 (IEG ICRR: U of P066426)

• 127,928 tCO2e per year as of 2017 from IFC investments (DOTS).

Given the differences in the unit of measurement of emissions reduction, the total emission reductions were at least 6.7 million tCO2e. Achieved

Development (La Venta 3) (P077717, FY06), Integrated Energy Services (P088996/P095038, FY08), Hybrid Solar Thermal (Agua Prieta) (P066426, FY07), and the following ASAs: Programmatic Approach for Environmental and Climate Change Policies and its subtasks (P146340, FY16). The IFC investments CPLF PuertasFin (36529), Solem Uno (40372), Solem Dos (40374), Potrero Solar (41297), Solem Solar (36041), Solem Solar 2 (40341), Perote II (41041), IEnova Corp. (42260) and the AS Puertas Finas Resource Efficiency (600332) also supported the objective. At the PLR stage, the indicator was modified from the original: Increased eolic energy production and avoided emission of MtCO2 (La Venta III) Emissions Baseline: 0 Target: 1.15 MtCO2e The different projects measured emission reductions differently: tons vs tons/year, average vs cumulative. In addition, P145618 measures potential emissions reductions and not actual.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/132941537212873195/pdf/ICR00004321-08282018.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/132941537212873195/pdf/ICR00004321-08282018.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/239681545430116455/pdf/Disclosable-Version-of-the-ISR-MEXICO-Sustainable-Energy-Technologies-Development-for-Climate-Change-P145618-Sequence-No-07.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/239681545430116455/pdf/Disclosable-Version-of-the-ISR-MEXICO-Sustainable-Energy-Technologies-Development-for-Climate-Change-P145618-Sequence-No-07.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/646461558014339626/pdf/Mexico-MX-Sustainable-Rural-Development.pdf

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/646461558014339626/pdf/Mexico-MX-Sustainable-Rural-Development.pdf











Annexes 33


Annex Table 2: Planned and Actual Lending for Mexico FY14-19 (US$, millions)

Project ID Project name Proposed

FY Approval

FY Closing

FY Proposed

IBRD Amount

Proposed IBRD

Amount

Approved IBRD

Amount

Project Planned Under CPS/PLR FY14-19 CPS PLR

P145578 MX Oaxaca WSS Sector Modernization FY14 FY14 FY21 50 55

P147244 Third Upper Secondary Education DPL FY14 FY14 FY16 300 300.75

P147185 MX School Based Management Project III FY15 FY15 FY19 300 350

P160570 Agricultural Services for Food Security and Competitiveness (ASERCA)

FY17 FY22 120

P160309 Mexico Higher Education Project FY17 FY22 130

P157932 Access to Affordable Housing Project FY17 FY21 100

Total Planned 650 0 1,055.75

Unplanned Projects during the CPS Period Approval FY

Closing FY

Approved IDA

Amount

P147212 MX Social Protection System FY15 FY21 350

P149858 MX Reducing Inequality of Educat Opportunity FY15 FY19 150

P149872 EE in Public Facilities -PRESEMEH FY16 FY22 100 P153338 MX: Expanding Rural Finance FY16 FY24 400

P164152 MX SP System Additional Financing FY18 # 300

P164661 Forest Management and Entrepreneurship FY18 FY21 56

P165585 EE in Public Buildings, PRESEMEH FY18 # 50 P167674 Mexico Financial Inclusion DPF FY19 FY20 500 P169156 Expanding Rural Finance FY19 # 400

Total Unplanned 0 2,306.00

On-going Projects during the CPS/PLR Period Approval

FY Closing

FY Approved

IDA Amount

P088996 MX (CRL2) Integrated Energy Services FY08 FY15 15

P106261 MX Sustainable Rural Development FY09 FY18 50

P106528 MX Results-based Mgmt. and Bugdeting FY09 FY14 17

P106589 MX IT Industry Development Project FY09 FY16 80

P115067 MX Support to Oportunidades Project FY09 FY14 1504

P101369 MX Compensatory Education FY10 FY14 100

P107159 MX Urban Transport Transformation Progr FY10 FY19 150

Annexes 34


P115347 MX (APL2) School Based Management FY10 FY14 220

P106424 MX Efficient lighting and appliances FY11 FY14 251

P121195 MX Efficiency Improvement Program FY11 FY16 100

P122349 Additional Financing for the Support to Oportunidades FY11 FY14 1250

P123367 MX Savings and Credit Sector Loan FY12 FY18 100

P123760 MX Forests and Climate Change (SIL) FY12 FY18 350

P126487 MX MOMET for Improved Climate Adaptation FY12 FY16 105

P130623 MX (AF) Sust. Rural Development FY13 FY18 50 P116226 MX Social Protection in Health FY10 FY14 1250

Total On-going 5,591.89 Source: CPS and PLR, WB BI as of 10/10/2019 *LIR: Latest internal rating. MU: Moderately Unsatisfactory. MS: Moderately Satisfactory. S: Satisfactory. HS: Highly Satisfactory. Annex Table 3: Advisory Services and Analytics Work for Mexico, FY14-FY19

Proj ID Project Name Fiscal year Product Line Practice

P117624 MX Urban Transport Sector MoU FY14 TA Non-Lend Transport P122166 MX Water Sector Adapt. Tech. Coop. Progr FY14 TA Non-Lend Water

P122665 MX Financial Capabilities Assessment FY14 TA Non-Lend Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation

P128775 MX Improving Skills for Labor Prod PKS FY14 TA Non-Lend Education P129698 MX PKS - Social Protection and Health FY14 TA Non-Lend Social Protection & Jobs P130161 MX Agriculture Insurance Market Review FY14 TA Non-Lend Agriculture and Food P132533 MX TF Greening Electricity Generation FY14 ESW Energy & Extractives

P145817 MX JIT Fin Literacy IE Mucho Corazon FY14 TA Non-Lend Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation

P147313 Mexico-Innovative Entrepreneur Forum FY14 TA Non-Lend Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment

P150097 MX Energy consumption and Income FY14 ESW Energy & Extractives

P150391 National Competition Commission Support FY14 TA Non-Lend Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation

P150476 Oxaca Regulatory Barriers to Competition FY14 TA Non-Lend Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment

P119024 MX RAS Federal Urban Transport Policy FY15 TA Non-Lend Transport

P130848 MX RAS Programmatic Engagement in DRM FY15 TA Non-Lend Urban, Resilience and Land

P144364 Mexico#10288 Contingency Plan for CFIs. FY15 TA Non-Lend Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation

P145045 Subnational Doing Business in Mexico V FY15 ESW Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment

P146961 MX Acapulco WSS \ MX Urban Env. Services FY15 TA Non-Lend Water

P147308 Competition Reform in Tabasco State FY15 TA Non-Lend Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment

P147382 Competition reform in Mexico State FY15 TA Non-Lend Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment

Annexes 35



P148281 MX Baseline for sectoral GHGs offsets FY15 TA Non-Lend Environment, Natural Resources & the Blue Economy

P148624 MX SFP Strengthening the Govt Ext. Audit FY15 TA Non-Lend Governance P148625 Oaxaca: Gov. Accounting Harmonization FY15 TA Non-Lend Governance

P151148 MX Fiscal Challenges - Revenues FY15 TA Non-Lend Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment

P151149 MX Fiscal Challenges - Expenditure FY15 TA Non-Lend Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment

P151150 MX Subnational Fiscal Challenges FY15 TA Non-Lend Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment

P151210 MX RAS: IFT - Shared Wholesale Network FY15 TA Non-Lend Transport P151415 National Center for Hydrocarbons Informa FY15 TA Non-Lend Energy & Extractives P151724 MX Migrants FY15 TA Non-Lend Poverty and Equity P151725 MX Gender FY15 TA Non-Lend Poverty and Equity P152128 Guanajuato RAS Evidence for Policy FY15 TA Non-Lend Poverty and Equity P152165 Oaxaca Increasing Social Prosperity FY15 TA Non-Lend Social Protection & Jobs P153947 MX Poverty & Equity Diagnostics FY15 TA Non-Lend Poverty and Equity P153949 MX Productivity FY15 TA Non-Lend Poverty and Equity P153992 MX Poverty Eradication FY15 TA Non-Lend Poverty and Equity P154122 Unemployment Insurance FY15 TA Non-Lend Social Protection & Jobs P154124 Studies to Support Opportunidades Progra FY15 TA Non-Lend Social Protection & Jobs P154971 Knowledge Sharing Workshop on SEZ FY15 TA Non-Lend Trade & Competitiveness P155777 Integration of Mexico Health System FY15 TA Non-Lend Health, Nutrition & Population

P129050 MX RAS Oaxaca Public Sector Management FY16 TA Non-Lend Governance

P131200 MX TF Carbon Capture, Utilization & Stor FY16 TA Non-Lend Energy & Extractives P133243 MX Urbanization Review FY16 ESW Urban, Resilience and Land

P147194 MX Institutional Work on Env Safeguards FY16 TA Non-Lend Environment, Natural Resources & the Blue Economy

P147311 MX Solid Waste Mgmt FY16 TA Non-Lend Urban, Resilience and Land P147906 Gas Flaring Reduction in Mexico FY16 TA Non-Lend Energy & Extractives

P148273 MX Green Inclusive Growth in Hidalgo FY16 TA Non-Lend Environment, Natural Resources & the Blue Economy

P148277 MX Green incl. growth-Yucatan Peninsula FY16 TA Non-Lend Environment, Natural Resources & the Blue Economy

P148278 MX CC & Cross-Sector Env. Mgmt. FY16 TA Non-Lend Environment, Natural Resources & the Blue Economy

P149767 IMSS efficiency and effectiveness FY16 TA Non-Lend Health, Nutrition & Population P149899 Regional Event on Health Promotion/ PSIA FY16 TA Non-Lend Health, Nutrition & Population

P150092 MX RAS Mgmt Plan for Cutzamala Water Sys FY16 TA Non-Lend Water

P150341 Study on Tax Compliance in Mexico City FY16 TA Non-Lend Governance P150380 MX RAS Housing Policy & Housing Finance FY16 TA Non-Lend Urban, Resilience and Land P150408 The SPSH governance and accountability FY16 ESW Health, Nutrition & Population

P150637 Strengthening Banking RBS FY16 TA Non-Lend Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation

P150646 Mexico Public Expenditure Review FY16 ESW Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment

P150675 Addressing Contaminated Sites FY16 TA Non-Lend Environment, Natural Resources & the Blue Economy

P153095 Sovereign DRFI: evaluation and evidence FY16 TA Non-Lend Other

Annexes 36



P153340 Env. support to Hydrocarbon Agency FY16 TA Non-Lend Environment, Natural Resources & the Blue Economy

P154663 Minimum wage and productivity FY16 TA Non-Lend Social Protection & Jobs P154972 Building Shock Absorbers FY16 ESW Trade & Competitiveness

P154980 Financial services by non-banks FY16 ESW Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation

P155064 Oaxaca Judiciary RAAP FY16 TA Non-Lend Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment

P155079 Productivity catch up at firm-level FY16 ESW Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment

P155180 Anti-money Laundering Certification FY16 TA Non-Lend Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation

P157021 Commercial Real Estate Price Index CREPI FY16 TA Non-Lend Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation

P157058 MX RAS Phase 2: Cutzamala FY16 TA Non-Lend Water

P158513 Assessment of Baja California's IP FY16 TA Non-Lend Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment

P159370 Building regional knowledge networks FY16 TA Non-Lend Urban, Resilience and Land

P160052 MX Audit Regulation Initial TA CNBV FY16 TA Non-Lend Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation

P146483 MX RAS Jalisco Evidence Policy Making FY17 TA Non-Lend Poverty and Equity P147354 MX RAS Support to INADEM FY17 TA Non-Lend Other P154121 National Beneficiary Registry FY17 TA Non-Lend Social Protection & Jobs P155080 How markets work: analysis using prices FY17 ESW Other P155282 Subnational Doing Business in Mexico 6 FY17 ESW Other P155477 MX RAS Guanajuato II-Evidence for Policy FY17 TA Non-Lend Poverty and Equity P155528 MX RAS Des. Standard Oral Com. Lawsuits FY17 TA Non-Lend Governance P156729 Mexico Informal Transit Reform Support FY17 TA Non-Lend Transport

P156949 MX RAS Veracruz Public Sector Management FY17 TA Non-Lend Governance

P157342 MX RAS Morelos - Evidence for Policy FY17 TA Non-Lend Poverty and Equity P158402 MX RAS Support to INADEM II FY17 TA Non-Lend Other

P159016 Mexico FSAP Update FY17 ESW Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation

P159062 LC1: Access to Green Climate Fund FY17 TA Non-Lend Climate Change P159589 CL4D SEZ in Mexico FY17 TA Non-Lend Governance P162591 DB Reform Memorandum FY17 TA Non-Lend Other P163166 Oaxaca DB Reform Memo FY17 TA Non-Lend Other P157212 MX RAS Connectivity Plan for Mexico City FY18 TA Non-Lend Transport

P157558 MX RAS Strength PSM Systems in Mex.City FY18 TA Non-Lend Governance

P158466 SEZ Initiative Implementation Support FY18 TA Non-Lend Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation

P164806 National Digital Strategy Policy Note FY18 TA Non-Lend Other P164892 Renewable energy FY18 TA Non-Lend Energy & Extractives P146293 MX - Productivity Democratization FY19 AA Competitiveness and Innovation

P156100 Mexico Payment for Environmental Services Scheme: A Retrospective Evaluation

FY19 AA Other

P156617 MX Poverty and Equity PA FY19 AA Poverty and Equity

Annexes 37



P156737 Subnational Fiscal Topics FY19 AA Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment

P159490 Mexico and Productivity Diagnostics FY19 AA Poverty and Equity P159491 Mexico Distributional Impacts Analysis FY19 AA Poverty and Equity

P160599 Supporting Mexico's Special Economic Zones FY19 AA Finance, Competitiveness and

Innovation

P160730 MX Forests and Climate Change: Building Low-Carbon and Resilient Landscapes FY19 AA Environment, Natural Resources &

the Blue Economy

P161933 Catalyzing Financial Sector Development FY19 AA Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation

P162112 MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE TO MEET MEXICO’S NATIONAL DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION

FY19 AA Environment, Natural Resources & the Blue Economy

P162473 Strengthening Water Security and Resilience in Mexico FY19 AA Water

P162751 Mexico Technical Assistance - Strengthening Subnational Governments in Mexico

FY19 AA Governance

P163587 Catalyzing Asset-Based Lending FY19 AA Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation

P163627 Mexico Policy Notes FY19 AA Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment

P164777 Knowledge Agenda of the Educational Reform in Mexico FY19 AA Education

P164937 Programmatic Approach for the Agenda on Sustainable Transport FY19 AA Transport

P166668 Mexico's Conceptual Framework for a National Strategy on Food Loss and Waste FY19 AA Environment, Natural Resources &

the Blue Economy

P166743 Gender-informed Low Carbon Rural Development FY19 AA Environment, Natural Resources &

the Blue Economy P167037 Studies of PROSPERA’s long-term results FY19 AA Social Protection & Jobs

P167919 Mexico Fiscal and Trade Policies for Competitiveness FY19 AA Macroeconomics, Trade and

Investment

P168264 MX Strengthening the delivery of primary care FY19 AA Health, Nutrition & Population

P163477 Mexico Social Protection and Labor Engagement FY20* AA Social Protection & Jobs

P166393 Support for Safe School Reconstruction FY20* AA Urban, Resilience and Land

P166832 Mexico - National Diagnosis on Solid Waste Management FY20* AA Urban, Resilience and Land

P169278 MX Improving Housing Resilience FY20* AA Urban, Resilience and Land Source: WB BI as of 110/10/2019. Data available only up to FY18. Standard Reports as of Dec 9, 2019. Data available up to FY20. *For Info Only

Annexes 38


Annex Table 4: Mexico Trust Funds Active in FY14-FY19 (US$) Project

ID Project name TF ID Approval FY

Closing FY

Approved Amount

P066426 MX Hybrid Solar Thermal (Agua Prieta) TF 23346/TF57033 FY07 FY16 46,390,000

P077717 MX GEF LargeScale RE Dev TF 56781 FY07 FY16 25,300,000 P114012 MX-GEF Sust. Transp & Air Quality TF 95695 FY10 FY16 5,370,000 P100438 MX GEF Adaptation to Climate Change TF 96681 FY11 FY17 4,500,000

P131709 Coastal Watersheds Conservation in the Context of Climate Change Project TF 15475 FY14 FY19 39,518,000

P145618 MEXICO Sustainable Energy Technologies Development for Climate Change TF 19403 FY15 FY20 16,880,734

P159835 Mexico: Sustainable Productive Landscapes Project TF A7021 FY18 FY23 21,862,385

P160778 Additional Finance for Energy Efficiency in Public Facilities Project (PRESEMEH) TF A7062 FY18 FY22 5,790,000

P164661 Strengthening Entrepreneurship in Productive Forest Landscapes TF A6448 FY18 FY23 6,650,000

P157932 Improving Access to Affordable Housing Project TF A6448 FY18 FY23 3,350,000

P151604 Mexico Dedicated Grant Mechanism for IP and LC TF A5334 FY18 FY23 6,000,000

P120417 Mexico FCPF Readiness Preparation Grant TF A4502 FY18 FY20 1,500,000 TF A4501 FY18 FY20 3,500,000

Total 186,611,119 Source: Client Connection as of 10/10/2019 ** IEG Validates RETF that are 5M and above

Annexes 39


Annex Table 5: IEG Project Ratings for Mexico, FY14-FY19

Exit FY Proj ID Project name

Total Evaluated (US$M) *

IEG Outcome IEG Risk to DO

2014 P101369 MX Compensatory Education 100.0 SATISFACTORY NEGLIGIBLE TO LOW

2014 P106424 MX Efficient lighting and appliances 250.6 SATISFACTORY LOW

2014 P106528 MX Results-based Mgmt. and Bugdeting 0.4 UNSATISFACTORY NEGLIGIBLE TO LOW

2014 P115067 MX Support to Oportunidades Project 2,753.8 SATISFACTORY NEGLIGIBLE TO LOW

2014 P115347 MX (APL2)School Based Management 220.0 MODERATELY SATISFACTORY MODERATE

2014 P123505 Cancelled MX Fiscal Risk Management DPL 0.0 NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE 2016 P066426 MX Hybrid Solar Thermal (Agua Prieta) 0.0 UNSATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT 2016 P077717 MX GEF LargeScale RE Dev (La Venta 3) 0.0 SATISFACTORY MODERATE

2016 P088996 MX (CRL2) Integrated Energy Services 12.0 MODERATELY UNSATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT

2016 P106589 MX IT Industry Development Project 73.1 SATISFACTORY LOW

2016 P114012 MX-GEF Sust. Transp & Air Quality 0.0 MODERATELY SATISFACTORY MODERATE

2016 P121195 MX Efficiency Improvement Program 100.0 MODERATELY U NSATISFACTORY SIGNIFICANT

2017 P100438 MX GEF Adaptation to Climate Change 0.0 MODERATELY SATISFACTORY MODERATE

2018 P106261 MX Sustainable Rural Development 79.1 SATISFACTORY # 2018 P123367 MX Savings and Credit Sector Loan 69.6 SATISFACTORY # 2018 P123760 MX Forests and Climate Change (SIL) 291.6 SATISFACTORY # 2019 P147185 MX School Based Management Project 348.2 SATISFACTORY # Total 4,298.2

Source: AO Key IEG Ratings as 10/10/2019 Annex Table 6: IEG Project Ratings for Mexico and Comparators, FY14-FY19

Region Total

Evaluated (US$M)

Total Evaluated

(No)

Outcome % Sat

(US$M) Outcome

% Sat (No) RDO %

Moderate or Lower Sat (US$)

RDO % Moderate or Lower

Sat (No) Mexico 4,298.3 17 97.4 75.0 87.6 53.8 LAC 23,975.3 233 79.6 73.2 54.6 47.3 World 113,993.6 1,251 84.0 75.7 45.5 40.5

Source: WB AO as of 10/10/2019

Annexes 40


Annex Table 7: Portfolio Status for Mexico and Comparators, FY14-FY19

Fiscal year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Ave FY14-19 Mexico

# Proj 18.00 21.00 15.00 17.00 17.00 11.00 16.50 # Proj At Risk 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.83 % Proj At Risk 16.67 19.05 26.67 11.76 17.65 9.09 16.81 Net Comm Amt 1,571.26 2,383.69 2,187.89 2,530.39 2,382.74 2,481.53 2,256.25 Comm At Risk 254.50 319.61 323.99 205.00 325.00 55.00 247.18 % Commit at Risk 16.20 13.41 14.81 8.10 13.64 2.22 11.40 Region: LAC

# Proj 315.00 291.00 259.00 260.00 253.00 246.00 270.67 # Proj At Risk 70.00 68.00 63.00 67.00 72.00 48.00 64.67 % Proj At Risk 22.22 23.37 24.32 25.77 28.46 19.51 23.94 Net Comm Amt 29,271.02 27,712.97 29,360.31 28,924.76 28,806.59 30,737.56 29,135.53 Comm At Risk 6,355.56 5,866.47 5,535.45 5,223.10 5,661.57 3,819.07 5,410.20 % Commit at Risk 21.71 21.17 18.85 18.06 19.65 12.42 18.65 World # Proj 2,048.00 2,022.00 1,975.00 2,071.00 2,059.00 2,010.00 2,030.83 # Proj At Risk 412.00 444.00 422.00 449.00 431.00 411.00 428.17 % Proj At Risk 20.12 21.96 21.37 21.68 20.93 20.45 21.08 Net Comm Amt 192,610.14 201,045.15 220,331.54 224,420.09 241,895.61 254,762.55 222,510.85 Comm At Risk 40,933.54 45,987.65 44,244.91 52,549.14 49,306.48 53,150.91 47,695.44 % Commit at Risk 21.25 22.87 20.08 23.42 20.38 20.86 21.48

Source: WB BI as of 10/10/2019 Note: Only IBRD and IDA Agreement Type are included

Annexes 41


Annex Table 8: Total Net Disbursements of Official Development Assistance for Mexico FY14-FY19 (US$, millions)

Development Partners 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 All Donors, Total 814.89 321.07 809.3 754.61 .. DAC Countries, Total 683.82 256.48 642.02 692.78 .. Australia 1.77 1.12 0.41 0.69 .. Austria 1.73 1.91 2.16 2.46 3.49 Belgium 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.06 .. Canada 1.3 1.14 3.21 3.92 .. Czech Republic 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 .. Denmark .. 2.73 1.89 2.16 .. Finland 8.4 4.87 0.35 0.26 .. France 219.91 -9.86 147.49 188.84 .. Germany 249.17 102.67 327.81 277.58 .. Greece 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0 Hungary 0.01 0.04 0.12 0.12 .. Ireland 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.06 Italy 1.57 0.93 0.35 0.47 .. Japan -36.38 -125.87 6.16 8.82 .. Korea 0.81 0.38 0.33 1.62 .. Luxembourg 0 .. .. 0.01 .. Netherlands 0.2 0.08 0.11 0.14 .. New Zealand 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.28 .. Norway 6.54 2.87 0 .. .. Poland 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04 .. Portugal 0.17 0.1 0.09 0.09 .. Slovak Republic 0.02 .. .. .. .. Slovenia .. .. .. .. .. Spain -0.23 -1.66 -0.8 0.06 .. Sweden 0.32 0.39 0.38 0.28 0.29 Switzerland 0.62 0.54 0.76 1.87 .. United Kingdom -1.58 19.75 15.47 17.11 .. United States 229.1 254.04 135.48 185.84 .. Multilaterals, Total 129.94 63.44 165.04 57.1 .. EU Institutions 67.12 10.56 121.24 13.73 .. Regional Development Banks, Total 11.96 13.06 9.46 15.11 .. Inter-American Development Bank, Total 11.96 13.06 9.46 15.11 .. Inter-American Development Bank [IDB] 11.96 13.06 9.46 15.11 .. United Nations, Total 4.68 7.77 4.89 6.58 7 Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] .. .. .. .. .. International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] 0.77 0.62 0.28 0.43 .. IFAD .. 0.59 0.59 0.01 0.23 International Labour Organisation [ILO] 1.96 2.14 1.59 2.06 1.94 UNAIDS .. 0.02 0.01 .. .. UNDP 0.02 0.14 0.18 0.2 0.25 UNFPA 1.19 1.07 0.85 0.87 1.11 UNHCR .. 1.83 .. .. 2.46 UNICEF 0.74 1.35 1.39 1.61 .. World Health Organization [WHO] .. .. .. 1.4 1.01 Other Multilateral, Total 46.19 32.05 29.45 21.68 .. Climate Investment Funds [CIF] 18.04 5.55 7.28 14.12 .. Global Environment Facility [GEF] 29.15 26.09 21.61 7.17 ..

http://localhost/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=TABLE2A&Coords=%5bDONOR%5d.%5b909%5d&ShowOnWeb=true&Lang=en


















Annexes 42


Global Fund -1.43 .. .. .. .. Global Green Growth Institute [GGGI] 0.43 0.41 0.57 0.39 .. Non-DAC Countries, Total 1.13 1.16 2.24 4.73 .. Israel 0.67 0.9 0.8 3 .. Kuwait .. .. 0.23 .. .. Latvia 0.02 .. 0.01 0.01 .. Lithuania 0 .. 0.01 0.01 .. Malta .. .. .. 0.02 .. Romania 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.04 .. Russia .. .. .. .. .. Thailand 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.2 .. Turkey 0.25 0.09 0.56 0.55 .. United Arab Emirates 0.04 0.06 0.56 0.92 .. Private Donors, Total 5.06 4.06 7.6 32.93 31.84 Arcus Foundation .. .. .. .. 0.01 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 0.39 1.03 4.34 1.35 .. C&A Foundation .. .. 0.02 1.23 .. Children's Investment Fund Foundation .. .. .. 1.07 .. Conrad N. Hilton Foundation 1.1 0.3 0.28 0.75 0.5 David & Lucile Packard Foundation .. .. .. 4.27 5.14 Ford Foundation .. .. .. 3.28 8.83 John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation .. .. .. 9.54 5.37 MetLife Foundation 3.57 2.73 2.55 1.91 2.84 Oak Foundation .. .. .. 1.69 .. Omidyar Network Fund, Inc. .. .. .. 0.43 .. Wellcome Trust .. .. .. 0.75 .. William & Flora Hewlett Foundation .. .. .. 6.67 8.76 Turkey 0.33 0.55 0.25 United Arab Emirates 0.21 1.38 1.39

Source: OECD Stat, [DAC2a] as of 11/21/2019 * Data only available up to FY18













Annexes

43


Annex Table 9: Economic and Social Indicators for Mexico, FY14-FY19

Series Name Mexico Region: LAC World

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Average 2014-2019 Growth and Inflation

GDP growth (annual %) 2.8 3.3 2.9 2.1 2.0 - 2.2 0.8 2.9 GDP per capita growth (annual %) 1.5 2.0 1.7 0.9 0.9 - 1.2 -0.2 1.7 GNI per capita, PPP (current international $) 17,630.0 17,830.0 18,300.0 18,970.0 18,182.5 15,493.9 16,471.2

GNI per capita, Atlas method (current $) 10,510.0 10,170.0 9,410.0 8,940.0 9,180.0 9,642.0 8,983.6 10,709.4

Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) 4.0 2.7 2.8 6.0 4.9 4.1 2.3 2.0 Composition of GDP (%)

Agriculture, value added (% of GDP) 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.3 .. 3.3 4.7 3.5 Industry, value added (% of GDP) 31.5 30.0 29.5 30.7 31.2 .. 30.6 24.7 25.7 Services, etc., value added (% of GDP) 60.2 61.0 60.9 60.4 60.2 60.5 60.1 64.8 Gross fixed capital formation (% of GDP) 21.0 22.5 22.9 22.1 22.1 .. 22.1 18.8 23.6

Gross domestic savings (% of GDP) 21.9 22.1 22.4 23.0 23.8 .. 22.6 18.5 25.1 External Accounts

Exports of goods and services (% of GDP) 31.9 34.6 37.1 37.6 39.2 .. 36.1 21.5 29.3

Imports of goods and services (% of GDP) 33.1 36.6 39.1 39.4 41.1 .. 37.9 22.8 28.6

Current account balance (% of GDP) -1.91 -2.62 -2.25 -1.69 -1.77 .. -2.0 .. .. External debt stocks (% of GNI) 34.5 37.4 40.2 39.1 38.0 .. 37.8 .. .. Total debt service (% of GNI) 3.8 4.7 7.5 5.8 4.9 .. 5.4 5.1 .. Total reserves in months of imports 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.2 3.9 .. 4.5 10.1 12.4 Fiscal Accounts /1

General government revenue (% of GDP) 23.4 23.5 24.6 24.7 23.5 22.9 23.8 27.0 ..

General government total expenditure (% of GDP) 28.0 27.5 27.4 25.7 25.7 25.7 26.7 32.4 ..

Annexes 44


Series Name Mexico Region: LAC World

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Average 2014-2019 General government net lending/borrowing (% of GDP) -4.537 -4 -2.767 -1.065 -2.199 (2.8) -2.9 -5.4 ..

General government gross debt (% of GDP) 48.9 52.8 56.8 54.1 53.6 53.8 53.3 59.5 ..

Health

Life expectancy at birth, total (years) 74.9 74.9 74.9 74.9 .. .. 74.9 75.0 72.1 Immunization, DPT (% of children ages 12-23 months) 87.0 87.0 93.0 85.0 88.0 .. 88.0 87.8 85.7

Improved sanitation facilities (% of population with access) 88.5 89.4 90.3 91.2 .. .. 89.9 86.0 72.0

Mortality rate, infant (per 1,000 live births) 13.2 12.7 12.2 11.6 11.0 .. 12.1 14.9 30.6

Education

School enrollment, preprimary (% gross) 71.7 72.0 72.2 73.7 .. .. 72.4 75.7 49.1

School enrollment, primary (% gross) 108.0 106.6 106.3 105.8 .. .. 106.7 109.2 103.4 School enrollment, secondary (% gross) 97.3 100.8 102.4 104.4 .. .. 101.2 95.1 75.5

Population

Population, total (Millions) 120,355,128.0 121,858,258.0 123,333,376.0 124,777,324.0 126,190,788.0 123,302,975 629,115,148 7,425,513,221 Population growth (annual %) 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 .. 1 1.0 1.2 Urban population (% of total) 79.0 79.3 79.6 79.9 80.2 80 80.1 54.4 Poverty

Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 a day (2011 PPP) (% of pop) 3.8 .. 2.2 .. .. .. .. 3.9 10.0

Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of pop) .. .. 43.6 .. 41.9 .. .. .. ..

Rural poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of rural pop) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Urban poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of urban pop) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

GINI index (World Bank estimate) 48.7 .. 48.3 .. .. .. .. .. .. Source: Worldbank DataBank (WDI) as of 11/20/2019. WDI data only available up to FY18 *International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, November 2019; Data available up to FY

Annexes

45


Annex Table 10: List of IFC Investments in Mexico (US$, millions) Investments Committed in FY14-FY19 Project

ID Cmt FY

Project Status Primary Sector Name Project Size Net

Loan Net

Equity Net

Comm 39976 2019 Active Finance & Insurance 111.7 111.7 - 111.7 40252 2019 Active Industrial & Consumer Products 75.0 75.0 - 75.0 40457 2019 Active Finance & Insurance 101.4 101.4 - 101.4 40981 2019 Active Collective Investment Vehicles 5.0 - 5.0 5.0 41006 2019 Active Finance & Insurance 1.5 - 1.5 1.5 41297 2019 Active Electric Power 15.0 15.0 - 15.0 41306 2019 Active Finance & Insurance 12.4 12.4 - 12.4 42012 2019 Active Finance & Insurance 29.5 29.5 - 29.5 42036 2019 Active Chemicals 75.0 75.0 - 75.0 42561 2019 Active Finance & Insurance 5.2 5.2 - 5.2 33270 2018 Active Finance & Insurance 4.0 - 4.0 4.0 39740 2018 Active Finance & Insurance 107.4 107.4 - 107.4 39749 2018 Active Finance & Insurance 3.5 - 3.5 3.5 39764 2018 Active Finance & Insurance 0.3 0.3 - 0.3 39798 2018 Active Finance & Insurance 1.0 - 1.0 1.0 40066 2018 Active Finance & Insurance 9.7 9.7 - 9.7 40144 2018 Active Chemicals 50.0 50.0 - 50.0 40372 2018 Active Electric Power 28.9 25.2 - 25.2 40373 2018 Active Electric Power 2.9 2.9 - 2.9 40374 2018 Active Electric Power 21.1 18.6 - 18.6 40375 2018 Active Electric Power 2.1 2.1 - 2.1 40422 2018 Active Finance & Insurance 0.3 0.3 - 0.3 40423 2018 Active Finance & Insurance 1.3 - 1.3 1.3 40491 2018 Active Finance & Insurance 4.3 4.3 - 4.3 40637 2018 Active Finance & Insurance 18.7 18.7 - 18.7 40669 2018 Active Health Care 4.0 - 4.0 4.0 40809 2018 Active Collective Investment Vehicles 15.0 - 15.0 15.0 40858 2018 Active Finance & Insurance 0.3 0.3 - 0.3 40890 2018 Active Information 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 41572 2018 Active Finance & Insurance 1.6 - 1.6 1.6 36038 2017 Active Finance & Insurance 30.0 20.0 10.0 30.0 37803 2017 Closed Agriculture and Forestry 15.5 3.8 - 3.8 37826 2017 Active Agriculture and Forestry 10.0 10.0 - 10.0 38101 2017 Active Finance & Insurance 6.8 6.8 - 6.8 38366 2017 Closed Oil, Gas and Mining 22.2 22.2 - 22.2 38374 2017 Active Construction and Real Estate 17.9 17.9 - 17.9 38474 2017 Active Information 25.0 - 25.0 25.0 38754 2017 Active Agriculture and Forestry 37.0 37.0 - 37.0 38960 2017 Active Finance & Insurance 7.1 6.9 - 6.9 39422 2017 Active Collective Investment Vehicles 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 39445 2017 Active Finance & Insurance 29.4 29.4 - 29.4 31569 2016 Active Finance & Insurance 2.6 2.6 - 2.6 33776 2016 Closed Transportation and Warehousing 65.0 32.0 - 32.0 36262 2016 Closed Transportation and Warehousing 2.0 - - - 36395 2016 Active Collective Investment Vehicles 22.5 - 22.5 22.5 36529 2016 Active Industrial & Consumer Products 2.0 2.0 - 2.0 37090 2016 Active Finance & Insurance 0.4 0.4 - 0.4 37179 2016 Active Oil, Gas and Mining 60.0 - 60.0 60.0 37284 2016 Active Finance & Insurance 11.4 11.4 - 11.4 37664 2016 Closed Wholesale and Retail Trade 26.4 7.5 - 7.5 37840 2016 Closed Nonmetallic Mineral Product

120.0 120.0 - 120.0

Annexes 46


Project ID

Cmt FY


Loan Net

Equity Net

Comm 32817 2015 Active Transportation and Warehousing 75.0 75.0 - 75.0 34073 2015 Closed Agriculture and Forestry 10.0 10.0 - 10.0 34538 2015 Closed Finance & Insurance 7.4 7.4 - 7.4 34745 2015 Active Information 1.2 1.2 - 1.2 34763 2015 Closed Finance & Insurance 5.0 5.0 - 5.0 35097 2015 Closed Oil, Gas and Mining 1.1 1.1 - 1.1 36410 2015 Active Finance & Insurance 11.8 11.8 - 11.8 36712 2015 Active Transportation and Warehousing 10.0 10.0 - 10.0 31939 2014 Active Transportation and Warehousing 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 32029 2014 Closed Finance & Insurance 5.0 0.6 - 0.6 33550 2014 Active Industrial & Consumer Products 13.0 13.0 - 13.0 33639 2014 Closed Finance & Insurance 13.6 13.6 - 13.6 33770 2014 Active Health Care 2.3 - 2.3 2.3 33958 2014 Active Information 11.3 11.3 - 11.3 34031 2014 Active Collective Investment Vehicles 10.0 - 10.0 10.0 34151 2014 Closed Finance & Insurance 4.7 - 4.7 4.7 34316 2014 Closed Collective Investment Vehicles 50.0 - 6.8 6.8 35032 2014 Closed Finance & Insurance 4.6 - 4.1 4.1 35041 2014 Closed Finance & Insurance 0.5 0.5 - 0.5 35090 2014 Closed Finance & Insurance 1.6 - 1.5 1.5

Sub-Total 748.9 509.8 136.9 1,440.1 Investments Committed pre-FY14 but active during FY14-FY19

Project ID

CMT FY


Loan Net

Equity Net

Comm 30281 2013 Active Health Care 10.1 10.1 - 10.1 30417 2013 Active Chemicals 285.0 285.0 - 285.0 31095 2013 Active Education Services 14.7 14.7 - 14.7 31195 2013 Active Agriculture and Forestry 10.0 10.0 - 10.0 31548 2013 Active Construction and Real Estate 50.0 50.0 - 50.0 31922 2013 Active Industrial & Consumer Products 289.3 289.3 - 289.3 32407 2013 Active Finance & Insurance 50.0 - 50.0 50.0 32065 2012 Closed Finance & Insurance 1.4 - 1.4 1.4 29030 2012 Active Finance & Insurance 25.0 - 25.0 25.0 30445 2012 Active Education Services 45.8 31.2 - 31.2 30905 2012 Active Finance & Insurance 4.3 2.5 1.5 4.0 31517 2012 Active Collective Investment Vehicles 15.0 - 15.0 15.0 28070 2011 Active Electric Power 28.9 25.5 - 25.5 28086 2011 Active Collective Investment Vehicles 10.0 - 10.0 10.0 29734 2011 Active Agriculture and Forestry 5.0 5.0 - 5.0 29753 2011 Active Education Services 7.8 - 7.8 7.8 30229 2011 Active Industrial & Consumer Products 24.5 24.5 - 24.5 27669 2010 Active Collective Investment Vehicles 10.0 - 10.0 10.0 29520 2010 Active Accommodation & Tourism

20.0 - 20.0 20.0

29524 2010 Active Construction and Real Estate 50.0 - 16.2 16.2 25352 2008 Active Collective Investment Vehicles 20.0 - 18.7 18.7 24712 2007 Active Collective Investment Vehicles 20.0 - 20.0 20.0 23860 2006 Active Collective Investment Vehicles 20.0 - 20.0 20.0

Sub-Total 1,016.7 747.7 215.6 963.3 TOTAL 1,765.6 1,257.5 352.5 2,403.4

Source: IFC-MIS Extract as of 06/30/19

Annexes 47


Annex Table 11: List of IFC Advisory Services in Mexico (US$, millions) Advisory Services Approved in FY14-FY19

Project ID Project Name

Impl Start FY

Impl End FY

Project Status Primary

Business Line

Total Funds, US$

599427 C3P - BD, Rest of LAC 2019 2020 ACTIVE CPC 0.88 602355 Mexico Schools 2019 2021 ACTIVE CPC 0.62 604179 Los Cabos Water 2019 2020 ACTIVE CPC 0.77 603142 Progresemos DFS 2018 2020 ACTIVE FIG 0.38 601768 Guadalajara Solid Waste 2017 2018 TERMINATED CPC 2.12 601834 Los Cabos Solid Waste 2017 2018 TERMINATED CPC 1.09 601327 Mexico CFE PPP in Power Transmission 2016 2017 TERMINATED CPC 1.55 599213 Oaxaca Water PPP 2015 2016 TERMINATED CPC 0.52 600710 Merida Secondary Hospital - ISSSTE 2015 2016 TERMINATED CPC 0.79

599396 Mexico City - Central de Abastos Solid Waste PPP 2014 2016 TERMINATED CPC 1.26

600034 Agrofinanzas MFS 2014 2014 TERMINATED A2F 0.11 600307 Sahuayo Waste 2014 2015 TERMINATED CPC 0.61 600323 Controladora Veta Grande, S.A. de C.V. 2014 2015 TERMINATED PPP 0.53 600332 Puertas Finas Resource Efficiency 2014 2015 CLOSED CAS 0.08 Sub-Total 11.50

Advisory Services Approved pre-FY14 but active during FY14-FY19

Project ID Project Name

Impl Start FY

Impl End FY

Project Status Primary

Business Line

Total Funds, US$

590767 Wind Sector Development in Mexico 2013 2015 TERMINATED SBA 1.31 599254 SuKarne - Waste to Energy Project 2013 2014 TERMINATED SBA 0.65 599589 Puebla Bus Rapid Transit PPP 2013 2015 CLOSED CPC 0.97 583007 SEF Mexico 2011 2016 CLOSED FIG 1.22

Sub-Total 4.5 TOTAL 15.7

Source: IFC AS Portal Data as of 6/30/19

Annexes 48


Annex Table 12: IFC net commitment activity in Mexico, FY14 - FY19 (US$, millions) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

Long-term Investment Commitment Collective Investment Vehicles 10.0 - - (0.1) 15.0 5.0 29.9 Other CDF Sectors 2.3 (0.1) (0.1) 0.0 4.0 - 6.0 Financial Markets (1.6) (58.0) 8.9 69.5 151.2 263.4 433.3 Funds 51.8 (51.8) 22.5 - - - 22.5 Trade Finance* Infrastructure 100.2 82.7 67.0 - 15.9 12.3 278.0 Oil, Gas & Mining - - 60.0 - - - 60.0 Other Infra Sectors - - - - - - - Telecom, Media, and Technology 6.3 1.2 (0.0) 25.0 1.0 - 33.4 Agribusiness & Forestry 13.0 10.0 2.0 63.1 (12.7) (0.0) 75.3 Health, Education, Life Sciences (0.1) (4.7) (4.1) (13.5) 50.0 75.0 102.6 Manufacturing 59.7 29.7 160.4 38.7 34.4 83.1 406.0 Other MAS Sectors 0.5 (0.5) (2.2) - - - (2.2) Tourism, Retail, Construction & Real Estates (TRP) 41.9 39.1 19.1 (5.7) (1.3) 0.2 93.3 Total IFC Long Term Investment Commitment 283.8 47.7 333.3 177.0 257.4 439.0 1,538.2 Total Short-term Finance/Trade Finance / Average Outstanding Balance (GTFP) - 2.5 - - - - 2.5

Source: IFC MIS Company Portfolio Daily 12/2/19 *Note: IFC began reporting average outstanding short-term commitments (not total commitments) in FY15 and no longer aggregates short-term commitments with long-term commitments. IEG uses net commitment number for IFC's long-term investment. For trade finance guarantees under GTFP, average commitment numbers have been used. Annex Table 13: List of MIGA Projects Active in Mexico, FY14-FY19 (US$, millions)

Contract Enterprise FY Project

Status Sector Investor Max Gross Issuance

13880 Ciclo Combinado Tierra Mojada S.A. de R.L. de CV. Active Power Cayman Islands 962.9

Total 962.9 Source: MIGA 12/3/19

Date post:	24-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

CLR Review - ieg.worldbank.org · quality was not, and aspects of fiscal management capacity were...

Documents